Little hooks

Monday's seminar was amazing. Sometimes we get to think that theology is just all theory and removed from everyday life. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. I've been thinking about some of the comments made by Robert Pyne (and others). Dr. Pyne is professor of theological studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. For years, Dr.Pyne taught the complementarian viewpoint endorsed by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This view is essentially that men and women are equal but different. This is the view that says that men should be in leadership positions in the church, and women, although equal, should not be. Teaching this view for twelve years, and reviewing all the literature that comes out, means that you get to know where the arguments for this position are strong, and where they are weak. Dr. Pyne began to realize that some of the evidence for this position was, in his words, like one of those plastic adhesive hooks that you hang on your bathroom door. They are fine for holding small items, like towels. When you hang something heavy on the hooks, like a bathrobe, they come crashing down to the ground. These little hooks can't handle the weight. Is there evidence for the complementarian view? Absolutely. Are the hooks strong enough to justify half the body of Christ being excluded from leadership? According to Dr. Pyne, they aren't. The arguments can't hold that type of weight. A parallel to this issue is slavery. Is there Scriptural support for slavery? According to William E. Hull, pro-slavery advocates had more biblical support and evidence than abolitionists. Again, the hooks weren't strong enough, and today we are shocked at how those in favor of slavery could use the Bible that way. Yet we (the church) were, for the most part, on the wrong side of the slavery issue. Dr. Pyne left us with these questions about drawing lines in the sand on issues like gender and leadership:

If you are unsure whether a practice (e.g. head covering) is commanded, should you demand it? If you are unsure whether a practice is forbidden (e.g. women teaching), should you forbid it? What do you believe you can demand (or forbid) with confidence?

"If you are going to forbid half the body of Christ," he said, "you'd better have a pretty strong hook." It's not that the hooks on the other side are necessarily stronger. In fact, some egalitarians argue poorly. There are enough good hooks, though, at least in my view, that seem to be able to hold the weight of grace. I realize that these will be fighting words to some of my readers. What I appreciated most about the other day is that we could discuss the issues honestly without getting too riled. No doubt some of the other speakers appealed more to others. If you're interested, you may want to think about ordering the tapes directly from Heritage. Christians for Biblical Equality also has some good material. I think I'll be ordering a new book (Discovering Biblical Equality) as well.

Comments

[Our Hangout]

Old dog, new tricksWhen a, Dallas Theological Seminary, Theology professor tells you that he's changed his mind on something that he had believed, supported and taught for 12 years (the whole issue of women in ministry again)...in the very least, you should pay...

[Dave]

Sounds like a great conference! I've heard Dr. Pyne speak before in Hamilton and he used the same plastic hook analogy. It serves a great purpose to demonstrate the danger of holding dogmatic positions that exegesis cannot bear. But apart from its rhetorical value it merely begs the question: Is the exegetical evidence too weak to construct a binding conviction? Or is it strong enough to sustain a binding conviction? Dr. Pyne still has to prove his case or at least prove plastic over iron for the complementarian hook. Also, the limitation of using the slavery analogy to "parallel" or support evangelical egalitarianism is not inconsequential. For example, in the New Testament there is no language of prohibition attached to slavery. Nor does Paul argue from creation concerning slavery and so on. This is one of the systemic flaws of Bill Webb's book on the redemptive movement hermeneutic. The logical fallacy of totality transfer between the two categories of slavery and egalitarianism is committed. Lastly, if the egalitarians have the hooks of grace (regardless of the strength of those hooks) then at the least you seem to imply that the nonegalitarians do not, or at the most that the nonegalitarians have hooks of law. If this is in your thinking then I'm afraid a false dichotomy is at work. Wasn't Jesus full of both grace and truth when he prohibited the woman caught in adultery from committing this sin further? I believe some complimentarians are gracious truthtellers. If they are right then they exercise the purest form of grace relative to the role of women. So if grace and truth are coextensive then why continue to create this straw man contrast. It's not helpful in the dialogue between the two camps.

[Darryl]

Dave: You've got some great thoughts here. This is exactly the type of discussion that needs to take place on this issue. I'd like to get his slides to follow up on some of his quotes. While slavery has some parallels to the gender issue, you are right in saying that they are not parallel in every detail. This was asked in the Q&A time. Dr. Pyne spoke to the concern you expressed in the last paragraph. In the end, this isn't about grace vs. truth. That is a false dichotomy indeed. It is possible to get to the end of all the considerations and say, "Yeah, I think the hook is strong enough." If you do, then that's understandable. For those of us who face a lot of questions at the end, we do have to make the very real decision which way to go. I don't think the last word will be said on this for a while, but I'm hopeful after a conference like Monday's.

[george]

Darryl, I haven't really thought about this issue too much, you know where my church stands on this issue and its complementarian. I see how that is scriptural and I'm good with that. Isn't it true though that many of the same churches that have dealt with this issue before and have gone the egalitarian route are now having the homosexual debate. I know of a number of denominations where that is the case. Also can you point me to a denomination that has embrased the egalitarian view that God is now using powerfully to transform lives.

[Darryl]

I don't know much about the denominations in the States. Up here, I would point to the Alliance (they allow churches to be egalitarian) and the Salvation Army as being effective and somewhat egalitarian. I suspect that denominations that are egalitarian and pro-homosexuality are also very different in how they see Scripture - which is to me the bigger issue than if one is egalitarian or not.

[Craighton]

There are many evangelical denominations in the US that are egalitarian, especially those in the Wesleyan (Arminian) tradition, including Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, etc. Nazarenes have been ordaining women, for example, the whole of their 100-year existence. Other denominations caught on later, such as the Reformed Church of America, which started ordaining women a mere 25 years ago, and where actual belief in egalitarian Biblical interpretations is still spotty at best. It's quite a sad situation, still, in many local congregations.