All Comments for: Wounds of a Friend: Egalitarian | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > June

Christianity Today, June, 2008 |

Wounds of a Friend: Egalitarian

Egalitarians should rely more on careful exegesis and less on political ideologies.

Sarah Sumner | posted 6/25/2008 09:05AM

Counterpoint: We complementarians need to recover a fully biblical view of women — and of handling theological disagreement.

I am a proponent of women in ministry leadership. In agreement with egalitarians, ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

jlp	Posted: July 01, 2008 12:21 PM

Anyone who has read and is familiar with the body of egalitarian literature can tell right away that the author of this article has not studied egalitarian material. If the author had read egalitarian literature she would have found that most of her criticisms are already answered there. The criticisms she makes of egalitarianism are for the most part straight from complementarian critiques of it. I myself have conversed several times with complimentarians over the precise criticisms she makes in this article. My suggestion is that the author read the main body of literature about egalitarianism before she critiques it again. And for that matter, before she critiques anything, spend time reading the literature before making criticisms of it.

Sharon

Posted: July 01, 2008 10:04 AM


“...it is also undeniable that Scripture nowhere tells husbands to submit to their wives.” Is this not an argument from silence? Hasn't she missed the ENTIRE point of this passage?

Mary	Posted: July 01, 2008 8:27 AM

What I found unfortunate is that Sumner merely parroted the gross distortions that the complementarian camp frequently publishes about biblical equality, rather than dealing accurately with egalitarian scholarship. I concur with those who've wondered if she actually IS egalitarian. She seems remarkably unaware of the excellent scholarship produced by Christian egalitarians. She might start, for example, by recognizing that virtually all egalitarian scholars agree that KEPHALE is rightly translated "head." While the context often is informed by the common metaphorical meaning of "source," Sumner ignores the fact that egalitarian scholars (like most scholars who aren't out to prove a patriarchal presupposition) also agree that KEPHALE does NOT mean "authority over." Yes, those who want to believe that it DOES mean that in Greek (because it sometimes means that in English) totally miss the head/body metaphor. Sumner likewise seems to have missed it. What an opportunity CT missed!

Meredith

Posted: June 30, 2008 6:16 PM

This was a poorly written article. I'm having a hard time believing the author really IS in favor of women in church leadership or egalitarian marriage. And I'm unsure what she is referring to by "political ideologies" or "Kantian" philosophy. That case was not made. These worn-out objections are not helping people come to a clearer understanding of Scripture or create a higher level of Biblical scholarship. The author has ignored the historical context of the Household Codes and the realities that those codes are addressing. The argument that a "source" understanding of headship makes it irrelevant is without support. However, it may be true--marriage today doesn't require either partner to be either an authority or a source. But the most disturbing argument here is regarding Gal. 3:28. Salvation is MUCH more than initiation into God's kingdom. Salvation includes EVERYTHING about life in the Kingdom. So Gal. 3:28 IS a sweeping, radical statement about that life. Why fight that?

historyloveralways

Posted: June 30, 2008 5:41 PM

Dear Ms. Sumner, You don’t know egalitarian beliefs very well. Here are some books I suggest you read: Discovering Biblical Equality, Complementary Without Hierarchy by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis Women, Authority and the Bible edited by Alvera Michkelsen Slaves, Women & Homosexuals, Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb The Trinity & Subordinationism by Kevin Giles To the editors of Christianity Today: I am surprised that you had someone write a critique of egalitarianism who doesn’t know it very well. Perhaps you need to know it better also.

Biblicist

Posted: June 30, 2008 5:11 PM

Sumner writes: “Egalitarians often argue that since God commands his people to submit to one another, women leaders have the right to be submitted to by men. When this doesn't happen, they feel angry.” No one has the right to be submitted to by anyone. Yet we all have the obligation to arrange ourselves under one another . Sumner needs to get her facts straight and out of her imagination. “While it's undeniable that Ephesians 5:21 says to "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ," it is also undeniable that Scripture nowhere tells husbands to submit to their wives.” Mutual submission is the glue that holds friends for eternity. There is no other element so important as honoring, respecting, and acting for the benefit of the other in holding important relationships together. Ephe. 5:21 says that all Christians are to submit one to another (allelon), and that includes within all relationships. Husbands are not above the mandate of Eph. 5:21.

Ruth	Posted: June 29, 2008 8:00 AM

I found this article very dissapointing. The Complementarian article got it right. It was written by someone who holds the traditional Complementarian views. It critiqued something that the movement often overlooks. The Egalitarian article points out that sometimes the movement doesn't emphasize Scripture, but it doesn't stop there, where it should. The article is obviously not written by what I'd consider an Egalitarian. Rather, the author holds some sort of middle view. The author goes on to hold up her views as the standard by which things should be critiqued by. If the author wanted to write an article on interpretation, she should have done so. That is not the point of these articles, and by doing so, she made the two articles very uneven. I am dissapointed with CT. I usually find CT to be balanced and to have a variety of articles on different views. Clearly, here, though, the skew is toward the complementarian view. Rather than allowing for discussion, this article divides.

Paul	Posted: June 28, 2008 6:49 PM


Egalitarian marriages are susceptible to "Western individualism?" Where's her evidence for this? There, however, actually is evidence that egalitarian marriages are less likely to be associated with domestic abuse and more likely to be associated with marital satisfaction (Coontz, Stephanie 1997; Mickelson, Kristin D, 2007)

Dr. Raymond A. Blacketer

Posted: June 26, 2008 2:30 PM

The need for such humble and self-critical reflection as reflected in these articles is proven by Mr. Geis' extreme remarks. It is less than Christian to vicously attack one's opponents on this issue with over-the-top labels of heresy, and to characterize them as wicked and unjust oppressors of women. As an egalitarian, I am deeply ashamed of such self-righteous vitriol and utter lack of charity. Mr. Geis even attacks the egalitarian Prof. Sumner. And as for the theological greats cited by Mr. Geis, none of those individuals would have supported the ordination of women. Demonizing those with whom we disagree by such dishonest means is reprehensible. I commend both articles, for unlike Mr. Geis's rant--which is part of the problem, they are constructive contributions to the discussion.

Chris

Posted: June 26, 2008 11:39 AM


I'm still trying to figure out why one side feels the need to change the other in the first place. Especially since egalitarians are probably in the majority and have the larger culture on their side. Why not just leave those with a different view alone? If I as a woman choose to be a part of a fellowship that holds the complimentarian view, who is being hurt by this?

Derek

Posted: June 26, 2008 12:03 AM

Thanks for your article, Sarah. I think "the G" has a blindspot. I want to suggest that the 1Timothy passage is addressed to men, not women. Here's a thought to chew on... Yes, Eve was led astray but by whom? satan? Perhaps. But, could Paul be referring to Adam? What if Eve answered the serpent with what Adam told her? Maybe Paul wants men to lead because man (all men through Adam) abdicated his responsibility in the Garden. Nothing in the text leads us to conclude that Eve was led astray because she was an idiot, is incapable of handling theology, more susceptible to deception or more inclined to sin than Adam. We do know Adam stood by and said nothing. Why? Maybe it was because HE (ADAM) didn't trust God. Paul challenges men in 1Timothy by asking, "Will you trust God now?" (Question -- so, what do you think God is asking men to trust Him with?)

Brother Malcolm

Posted: June 25, 2008 10:04 PM

It is refreshing to hear both sides admit -- our human limitations and tendency to get carried away in debate, really. My own views could get me in trouble with both sides. I definitely believe that women are called to leadership in ministry; in fact we presently sit under the leadership of a highly gifted woman pastor. However I also think the verses about headship need to be taken seriously. That certainly does not mean the husband is the boss. I believe it does mean a degree of responsibility for the wellbeing of the entire family, and a willingness, following Christ, to die first -- although that usually means dying to self for the wellbeing of his wife and family.

MooreOrLes

Posted: June 25, 2008 1:55 PM

Although I find the articles well written and edifying; it seems that we miss the point all together. It seems that the authority being debated is the authority sought from men or institutions. The great men and women of the faith sought God and often paid dues for it. But, if God calls you, He will keep you; if the institution calls you, you will certainly come out short. The acknowledgement of God is sufficient. To say, "I also believe that Christ, not the husband, should be the leader of every marriage,.." and then quote Ephesians 5:23, "the husband is the head of the wife," sounds like someone in need of therapy. I find no issue with women in ministry, it is the shrewish way that most of them demand respect and the manipulations that are often used for control. It is no better than the way some men bully women and children with biblical tripe. Let's quit quibbling on the sidelines and "Do the WORK of the ministry". This tripe appears so childish from the middle of the battle.

Francis H Geis

Posted: June 25, 2008 12:55 PM

Sarah Sumner is right that egalitarians should always develop their views on the basis of sound biblical exegesis and wholistic theological interpretation. And most of the best egalitarian literature I have read does just that. Now as for the charge that we base some of our views on proof-texting of verses that only deal with salvation, and that we're unduly influenced by Kantian ethics is a rather curious charge from one who says she is an egalitarian herself. Gal. 3:26-4:7 is the first of several Pauline texts (i.e., 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Rom. 4:13-14; 8:9-17; and Eph. 2:11-22) where Paul develops what I call "the doctrine of the adoption to sonship" wherein Christ, as the Seed of Abraham, transfers the privileges, duties, and responsibilites of the privileged circumcised Jewish male to all who through faith, baptism into Christ, and reception of the Holy Spirit, who come to form the new family of Abraham, the "one new humanity." Our view has nothing to do with Kant.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment