5 thoughts on “Episode 120: More Than A Woman”

1. Great interview, love his approach. However, as a soft complementarian, I do have some questions/challenges with what I heard.

   1. Male Polygamy and 1 Tim. 3:2

   His argument seems to be that he was addressing a normative problem, that of polygamy, and polyandry was not really prominent. However, based on his logic, does this mean that he allows a woman deacon who is in a polygamous marriage? She is the wife of one husband, and such arrangements, by his argument, were worth mentioning – and based on the fact that each polygamous marriage has more than one wife, there would be MORE women in this situation than men.

   2. 1 Tim 2:11-12

   You asked a good question, why is this a gender non-specific command if given to women, and given the appeal to the creation order?

   He admits that there isn’t a good answer to this, but his answer is worse than the complementarian one – that, as you mentioned, he makes a global claim based on an appeal to the creation order. This can not be applied to a man, that is, ‘i do not let people teach other people in authority, because Adam was created first, then Eve.’ Seriously, his interpretation is much more of a stretch than the complementarian approach.

   I’m glad he tried to clarify what he means by creation order, but I suspect that this is not just appealing to the orderliness of creation, but the cardinality of ADAM first. I get his view that he is giving a notable story of a female who made this mistake, but that makes paul seem uncareful, and is tenuous.

   3. Women as Elders

   I disagree with his evaluation that this makes it sinful for women to preach the gospel to their own church. This is really inexact and maddeningly so!

   First, there is a difference between evangelism and pastoral authority, according to Partial Complementarianism.

   The problem with Junia is that (a) he didn’t answer if the word used there is referring to one of the 12, or one of the 70, or a messenger, and (b) PC does not say that women can’t plant churches.

   4. Husband and Wife

   He fails to address the problem that scripture directly teaches some very gender-specific things, like “women obey your husbands” (1 Pet 3) while not saying the opposite. Mutual submission or submission itself is not the same as a command to obey. He conflates the two as the same.

   He exhibits no understanding of equal but different, and assumes that unequal in authority (based on gender).

   He also wants to make the scriptures homoegnous and monolithic on this subject, ignoring the lesser, but important limiting principle of male headship.

   Drunk with wine – actually, the bible DOES also give this instruction to women, just not in the same section.

   5. Eph 5:21

   Damn right, you asked the right question. He has to zoom out on this one. He provides what I consider an illegitimate principle that goes like this:

   1. Some commands that are given to one gender apply to both
   2. Therefore, all commands given to one gender must be applied to the other equally

   I Jews should push for female circumcision then!

   He also conflates ‘submission’ with ‘obedience’ which I think is convenient for him, but incorrect.

   He also fails to admit that you can be both submissive to one another and still wield authority when needed – when Jesus loved the church and submitted to the father, did he not have authority over the church?

   I also think he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In rejecting hard complementarianism, and rightly complaining about partiarchalism, he is causing trouble in flip flopping to the opposite extreme, even if he did so in stages.

2. Thanks for doing that interview. That was the first egalitarian presentation that seemed to make some sense, especially the part about *some* prescriptions being gender specific because the other gender doesn’t generally have a problem with that (e.g. women have the problem with submitting whereas men don’t and men have the problem loving/caring whereas women don’t). Definitely interesting. I’ll have to give it another listen.

3. I reached out to Jamin asking if he’d like to share some thoughts in response to dgsinclair’s comment above. Here is what he said:

   1. Everything I’ve written on authentein in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to have been ignored, and that is unfortunate since it would shed enough light for us to stop uncritically using the word “authority” in our discussion.
   2. As I argue in my dissertation (ironically), there not the kind of distinction about “pastoral authority” mentioned; eldership is not a “special” office or “special” function isolated from the rest of the Spirit’s gifts, church’s functions, or Christian’s mission/evangelistic tasks. It is artificial and unjustified to make a certain activity unique so that it can be conveniently be isolated to one sex (or conveniently isolated to 1 Tim 2:12 before being isolated to one sex).
   3. The comment on Junia again suffers from the same problem: the assumption of artificial categories. (Why does Junia have to be in any of the categories listed – the 12, the 70, etc.? Do we really think Paul had those specific categories in mind?)
   4. “He fails to address the problem that scripture directly teaches some very gender-specific things, like “women obey your husbands” (1 Pet 3) while not saying the opposite.” Yes, I failed to give specific examples – because I never tried to give any (this was an interview). However, I did not fail to say that such examples did in fact exist. I never suggested 100% of the gender-oriented instruction in the NT could be cross-applied, only a large majority (I forget if my language was “vast majority” or something like that). There certainly are gender-specific instructions in both Testaments that cannot apply to both genders (consider “female discharges” for example in Mosaic law!)
   5. “He exhibits no understanding of equal but different, and assumes that unequal in authority (based on gender).” I have no idea what this means, except that I am reading “Jamin does not agree with the complementarian philosophy of ‘different but equal’.” At any rate, I have a feeling Sinclair has not read Groothuis’s essay in DBE and Adam Omelianchuk’s several essays on this subject – all of which thoroughly refute the “different but equal – that his, women are by nature subordinate and by nature not subordinate” mantra contradictory nonsense.
   6. “He also wants to make the scriptures homoegnous and monolithic on this subject, ignoring the lesser, but important limiting principle of male headship.” I had to laugh at this one – largely because I’ve written 3 (going on 4-6) essays on “headship” for the CBE Scroll’s June postings. Ya’ll might find them worthwhile, In any case, one of my points is that, supposedly headship is an “important limiting principle,” when in fact it is not; only complementarian culture has made it an “important principle.” It is mentioned in passing twice, possibly three times in the entire NT. It is quite possibly the most uncommon “litmus test” (aka “limiting principle”) in NT theology, if it even is one. Assertions like this tell me that someone is under the complementarian spell and does not realize it…
   7. “Drunk with wine – actually, the bible DOES also give this instruction to women, just not in the same section.” This is a perfect example of an irrelevant critique. Why is this fact significant? It doesn’t change my argument: gender specific instruction in the Bible is almost always cross-applicable and not limited to one gender; if I gave a poor example then defer to my other non-poor examples. And, of course, even if one grants that this wine-instruction inclusion is significant, it does not tell us why it is not found in parallel to its paired instruction for deacons. (Or are we to assume that Paul had no reason for including/excluding the various criteria for church officers that he did?)
   8. “1. Some commands that are given to one gender apply to both. 2. Therefore, all commands given to one gender must be applied to the other equally” I never made this argument, and it is a terrible representation of what I was saying. He needs to re-listen to the podcast (perhaps this time with the intent of understanding my view instead of simply refuting it).
   9. “He also conflates ‘submission’ with ‘obedience’ which I think is convenient for him, but incorrect.” I really don’t know why this is a talking point, or how it can be legitimately established. Paul regularly uses multiple words to say the same thing, with possible shades of meaning added from different words (actually I made this point on the podcast…everyone speaks and writes in this way) Of course, it is possible that a strong semantic distinction is being drawn, or maybe it isn’t. I would have to study these terms and their use before saying anything conclusive about them, but I suspect that they are not as radically different as they are here supposed.

4. 1. Everything I’ve written on authentein in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to have been ignored, and that is unfortunate since it would shed enough light for us to stop uncritically using the word “authority” in our discussion

   Of course, most listeners have only heard this interview, and are not familiar with your writings. I will look for them among the resources posted. But how does one’s understanding of authentein answer the challenge to your claim that polygamy was more common, so that’s why Paul only mentioned men in his definition of elders?

   To restate my objection to this inclusion of women, if he was concerned about polygamy, why did he not mention whether or not women in a polygamous (not polyandrous) arrangment can be elders? There would obviously be at least twice as many women involved as men. I guess, technically though, a woman who is in a polygamous arrangement IS the wife of one husband, just not the only wife 😉

   2. As I argue in my dissertation (ironically), there not the kind of distinction about “pastoral authority” mentioned; eldership is not a “special” office or “special” function isolated from the rest of the Spirit’s gifts, church’s functions, or Christian’s mission/evangelistic tasks…. I never suggested 100% of the gender-oriented instruction in the NT could be cross-applied, only a large majority (I forget if my language was “vast majority” or something like that).

   I will check on that, but I think it is a pretty huge hurdle to overcome in light of the male-centric language, and the normative pattern of women obeying husbands, which is never articulated in the reverse, only in a two way submission. While it is simpler to suppose mutual submission in all such gender-specific language, I doubt that Paul meant for men to teach the young women how to be chaste homemakers.

   As you say, you never meant to suggest that this applies globally, but then arguing for that only in specific passages cannot be assumed, but proven. And I’m not sure the few NT examples of women in Elder roles (or other roles acceptable to partial complementarians) is significant.

   3. The comment on Junia again suffers from the same problem: the assumption of artificial categories. (Why does Junia have to be in any of the categories listed – the 12, the 70, etc.? Do we really think Paul had those specific categories in mind?)

   Because the whole argument around Juniana is that she was ‘among the apostles.’ Of course, this doesn’t matter if you conflate all possible roles into one. However, if you do make meaningful distinctions, as partial complementarians do, then this may matter. But Apostle does not matter to a partial complementarian, depending on what you mean by apostle.

   If you demand ONE definition for apostle (no artificial categories), it makes no difference to full complementarians, but does nothing to address the arguably more reasonable partial stance. Does apostle include authoring scripture and having been with Jesus, or does it mean only church planter?

   My best guess is that if you demand only one definition (category), then I assume that apostle does NOT mean authoring scripture or having been with Jesus. In that view, you just mean church planter.

   As a partial complementarian I have no problem with Junia being part of a team, or even leading a team of church planters. However, when a new work settles into an established one, I would argue that the norm Paul would emphasize is that of a man as the Elder/Pastor/Bishop. That seems to be the norm he argues for, rather than the gender neutral interpretation argued for when he is using male ‘examples.’

   So the Junia claims have little bearing on whether or not a male/female local elder is in charge.

   4. gender specific instruction in the Bible is almost always cross-applicable and not limited to one gender;

   I think this is the nut of the problem. This point was certainly assumed and not made in the iterview.

   And BTW, I was responding to the interview. Better to take your knowledge of your work and pull quotes from it rather than chiding people for not reading all your work.

   However, I will read your work rather before asking any more questions.

5. Chris Date!!
   Brother I have thoroughly enjoyed this series, and hope that one day you can find a strong complementarian response. Last year I purchased Phillip Payne’s book. My research per his book lead me to your podcast, & Theopologetics. I’m glad I found ya. You are doing great work brother! Keep it up, the church needs what you bring to our spiritual plate. 🙂

   I’m not on fence but the egalitarian arguments still have many holes for me.
   Especially on HEADSHIP!