Women in the Church
From Neoredemptive
| Women in the Church:A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry | |
|---|---|
|
| |
|
Stanley J. Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo
| |
| Book Review Policy |
Synopsis
A presentation of the egalitarian argument for full equality of men and women in their roles within the context of the church and the home. A popular source work in the gender roles debate.
Outline and Argumentation
Our own comments on the argumentation, and particularly its glaring oversights and straw men, are inserted in parentheses (like this).
Chapter 1: Women in the Churches
Overview of the current controversy and how numerous denominations have reacted over the last half-century (usually by shifting toward more egalitarian praxis and language, or at least greater tolerance for individual congregations teaching and practicing egalitarian ideas).
Chapter 2: Women in Church History
Posits that all movements within Christendom begin in a "charismatic" mode and transition to a "respectable institutional" mode, and that this transition generally includes a shift away from early egalitarianism. The chapter provides a sketch of women's leadership roles in church history, from the second century "house churches" through the evolution of abbeys within Catholicism and women's prominence in the Wesleyan revivals and the temperance movement (which, it should be noted, was neither biblical nor Christian), to their varied roles within the evangelical and educational world.
The chapter ends with a curious claim: "And women were finally receiving their rightful [theological] educational credentials. These pioneers set a clear historical precedent for women serving in the gospel ministry. Therefore those who would bar them from preaching and teaching must turn from history to the Bible and theology in an attempt to make their case." Isn't the Bible where every conversation about the church should both begin and end? And how does a twentieth century development set a "historical precedent" for a movement which is constantly looking to the events of the first century as its foundation and the documents of the first as its norm?
Chapter 3: Women in the Faith Community
Surveys women in the Old Testament and the New Testament who seem to hold positions or office of prominence in Israel (OT) or the church (NT).
Argument begins by admitting that women were excluded from the priesthood, but suggests that nothing should be read into this because no "theoretical or theological explanation as to why women were barred from the priesthood" is given.
Women were not limited to household management - Abigail (1 Sam 25:2-35), Shunammite (2Ki 4:8-10)., "wise woman" (2Sam 20:14-22). This is a straw man, as the complimentarian position does not seek to limit women to household management.
Leaders (OT): Miriam (Ex, Num), Deborah (Judges 4-5)
Prophetesses (OT): Hulduh (2Ki 22:14-20)
In Jesus' Ministry: Jesus honored women as persons. Women were among His "disciples" (but not among The Twelve).
Spiritual gifts given to all (Acts 2:16-17) - "This means that women had received the same foundational qualifications for ministry as men in the New Testament church".
In the Early Church: Lydia (Acts 16:13, 16:40), Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36-43), Mary (Acts 12:12-17), Lydia (Acts 16:13-15, :40).
States (incorrectly) that "prophecy" in the New Testament is another form of "authoritative speech" (see The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, God's Empowering Presence). The argument goes that because public prophecy is permitted to women (1Cor 11:5), women exercising prophetic gifts are examples of women in leadership/authority.
Teaching functions: Priscilla (Acts 18:18-28).
Women called "coworkers" by Paul. Argues that "coworker" implied equality of role or function, therefore women so named must have been in leadership roles like those under question: Euodia and Synthche (Phil 4:2-3), women named in Rom 16:1-16.
Women were appointed as Deacons (1 Tim 3:11), e.g. Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2).
Women are never (possibly excepting 1 Tim 5:2) referred to as elders or bishops, but (with the exception of 1 Peter 5:1 and 2 John/3 John) neither are any men.
Women as patrons (implicit leaders): Lydia (Acts 16:40), Priscilla (Rom 16:3-5, 1 Cor 16:19), Chloe (1 Cor 1:11), Nympha (Col 4:15)
The "co-elect woman" (1 Pet 5:13) and the "elect lady" (2 Jn 1)
Junia, who was either an apostle or highly esteemed by the apostles (Rom 16:7).
Conclusion makes some wild leaps:
- "The goal of biblical history is the establishment of a new people among whom outward distinctions no longer govern interpersonal relationships." This implies that gender is purely an "outward distinction" -- which is at odds with the subtext of "male and female He created them".
- "This means that the burden of proof rests with those who claim that the Spirit overlooks the majority of the disciples of Christ when he endows God's people with gifts for authoritative ministry." But this is precisely what happens in the normal course of events, even within the "male" world -- many gifted and able men are likewise "overlooked" by the Spirit and not given the gift of "authoritative ministry". We do not have a right to ANY ministry based upon our own credentials.
Chapter 4: Women in the Writings of Paul
Considers first Galatians 3:28, then 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and 14:34-36, and finally 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and their implications for the egalitarian position.
Galatians 3:28 is "Paul's Charter on Equality", the "Magna Carta of Humanity" (quoting Jewett approvingly), an "Emancipation Proclamation for Women" (Witherington), "the most socially explosive text in the Bible" (Snodgrass), possibly an early baptismal formula, indicating that believers are given a "'sameness' greater than any human distinctions." Rejects the complimentarian position that the verse is soteriological but not functional: "There is nothing in the Christian faith that is merely coram Deo (before God). All our faith engages all of our lives." (Again, quoting Snodgrass approvingly).
Discusses each of the anti-dichotomies in Galatians 3:28 in turn. For "Jew nor Gentile", "Because Gentiles receive the same [spiritual] gifts as Jews, they are equally eligible for leadership roles in the church." For "Slave nor Free", Paul (in Philemon) "tempers his advice with a keen perception of the situation of first-century society" rather than proclaiming goutright his actual belief, that "the social order of slavery and the unity of all believers in Christ were fundamentally incompatible." (Does this lay the groundwork for him "compromising" on gender roles in later verses?) Finally, "Male and Female" (note the change from "nor" to "and" in the Greek) echoes the wording of Genesis 1:27 ("male and female He created them"), and while "evangelical egalitarians do not interpret Paul as saying that in Christ gender distinctions no longer exist", "the old way of relating as male and female must give way to the new unity of all believers". (But must it "give way" in every functional express of maleness and femaleness, or do maleness and femaleness remain functionally, ontologically, and teleologically distinct even "in Christ"?)
Asks "which Pauline text(s) carry hermeneutical priority in our attempt to understand Paul's teaching about women in the church?", coming down on the side that Galatians 3:28 is the general principle, and where other texts deviate from that principle, it must be "Paul's attempts to counter the abuses of specific situations" (apparently regardless of whether interpreting those texts that way has any textual merit -- if the text itself suggested, or even was more "simply read" by the egalitarian reading, this note would be completely unneeded).
The first passage in 1 Corinthians speaks of public prayer, head coverings, and long hair. There is no dispute that woman are permitted to pray and to prophesy publicly. A long survey is made of various interpretations of what particular problems, "coverings" and "hairstyles" Paul may have had in mind, all to say "we can no longer simply assume that Paul had a material veil in view." (Neither can we exclude it, however, so resting upon either position or the falsehood of either position is tenuous.)
The authors next turn to what to make of "head" in 11:3, "The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." Notes that the view of "head" as implying "having authority over" has "come under intense attack" in "recent years" (not surprising, given the ascendancy of egaliarianism both in culture and as a theological presupposition). Argument shifts from "has authority" to "subordination", suggesting that Paul's reference to creation in no way implies subordination. Refers approvingly to scholarship suggesting that "The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" means "A woman out to have authority [that is, liberty, right or control] over her head", which itself still has an unclear meaning; several possibilities are presented. Also points out that "woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman" could (if one linguist is to be believed) mean "woman is not different from man nor man from woman". Also speaks briefly of the issue of the Son's submission to the Father within the trinity, arguing that the son's submission was temporary and thus does not provide a model for "a social order that encodes the subordination of one group (women/wives) to another group (men/husbands)" (but no complimentarians use the son's submission to the father as a rationale for female-to-male submission; they only use it to point out that functional submission does not imply ontological inferiority). Asserts that, while "authority" does occur, it "likely refers" to the authority of the woman herself and not a man's authority over her (although "could refer" would be a more accurate description given the evidence they have presented). Tries to tease out transcultural implications of a complimentarian view of the passage and "fails". Restates their (incorrect) view of prophecy as authoritative teaching. (In the end, even their reading of the passage is not of itself problematic to the complimentarian position.)
Authors next turn to the call for women to "remain silent" (1 Cor 14:33-40, esp. 34-36). Surveys egalitarians objections: that the text is not Pauline (per Gordon Fee), that Paul is stating the positions of his opponents then refuting them (per the "What!" later in the text), or that the verse is wrongly placed and the context is causing it to be misinterpreted (e.g., it was originally a contextualized corrective to a particular problem), but ultimately accept the integrity of the verses in context. Questions whether Paul, in referring to "law", refers to the Hebrew oral tradition, Roman law, or Torah law. Also questions what problem Paul meant to address, casting the entire verse's usefulness into question. Also continues to equivocate "prophecy" with "preaching and teaching". Concludes that it was addressing a local problem, drawing a parallel between "ask their husbands at home" and "eat at home" (11:22,34).
Turns next to 1 Timothy 2:11-15, beginning the discussion by calling the passage another "exegetical challenge". Points out the occasional nature of the epistle (but Paul is not in the habit of giving occasional advice without rooting it in trans-local theology). Points out that the defense of orthodoxy seems to be Paul's primary concern (which is true, but this passage, continuing through chapter 3, appears to speak to appropriate general church order with an eye toward maintaining that). Rabbit trails down whether Paul is speaking to women's dress in general or only to their dress while praying. Points out that "in silence" and "in full submission" are not derogatory, but reflect the common disciple demeanor of the day (but doesn't that then suggest this text was not directed at heretics? And why are these phrases not also applied to the men?).
Points out numerous egalitarian readings of the passage: "I am not presently allowing", the possibility that women in leadership would reinforce pagan cultural baggage, response to cultural climate which denounced female teachers (which is it? Were women respected as teachers in paganism and the church needed to break from them, or were they decried for it?), that the injunction was to last until women were sufficiently educated to combat heresy (where is that in the text?); also explores speculative theories as to alternate meanings of authenteo ("have authority"), a hapax legomenon, speculation about an Ephesian Gnostic cult of Eve. Notes that Eve's creation as a "helper" does not imply inferiority (but ignores that she was created "for Adam"), notes that Adam being created first/firstborn does not necessarily imply any binding or intrinsic authority. Notes (approvingly) that Adam is consistently noted as the source of sin in the world (but fails to think through any of the implications of this, beyond letting Eve off the hook as "the source of sin, therefore her daughters cannot lead"). Goes on to discuss more alternate readings of the Genesis references and of "saved by childbearing", all of them letting women off the hook of any purely-gender-defined restrictions (and all of them speculating things the text does not actually suggest).
Concludes the chapter with a section "How Do We Respond" - how should evangelicalism respond to the exegetical and hermentutical uncertainty? They reject J. I. Packer's call for caution, and instead conclude that Paul's supposed actions (within an egalitarian reading, of course -- see Chapter 3) speak louder than his (exegetically unclear) words (how much of that lack of clarity is actual and how much is paradigmatic, developed specifically to make egalitarianism less implausible?), calling instead for women to participate in all ways at all levels, including leadership, until someone can resolve all of the uncertainty about these verses.
Chapter 5: Women in Creation
Begins a transition from "isolated passages of Scripture" to "broader theological themes", which persists to the end of the book. They insist that it is "in the context of foundational doctrinal commitments that the biblical texts find their cohesion" (but what good is this if the texts themselves are not the foundation of those doctrines?).
Quickly sets up the first of many false dichotomies between egalitarianism and a complimentarian caricature. (In this case, "God intends women to be subordinate to men in all dimensions of life", answered by "the Bible may, however, lead us instead to more egalitarian conclusions" - well, duh! That's why complementarians do not believe that either!)
The main issues to consider: the nature of God (his ontology) and the nature of humankind as created by God (theological anthropology).
In considering "the nature of God", argues forcefully that God is not to be understood or thought of in any way in terms of male/female categories, that God is in fact "non-sexual" (quoting Trible approvingly). Quotes Barton approvingly saying the "predominance of masculine images off God in both Scripture and tradition has to do with the patriarchal structure of the societies in and for which those images were developed, not with the gender of God". Points out (rightly) that a "more helpful approach also seeks to understand what God may be trying to communicate to us through the use of male imagery", concluding that it is to be read "analogically, not literally", saying something figurative about God without implying a gender for Him or saying anything about maleness/femaleness/fatherhood/etc. (This is contrary to our take on the Fatherhood of God; but if "Father" and "Son" are really the "best metaphors", doesn't that still say something about the distinctness of male and female, father and mother, son and daughter, and that God reveals himself using that distinction rather than glossing over it?)
Argues that it was Christ's humanity, and not his maleness or his humanity-expressed-through-maleness, that is the essential point of the incarnation. Points out the use of maternal metaphors for God in the Old Testament (while glossing over Paul's use of maternal metaphors for himself, while in no way implying his own femininity). "It is imperative that we have women and men to model all aspects of God's nature", but God's "maternal and paternal characterstics [...] provide the basis for human sexual distinctions." (So are sexual distinctions purely functional? If not, how are we to decide which distinctions have teleological significance in the maleness and femaleness of the Imago Dei, and which we are all to model in equal measure?)
Discusses whether subordination implies inferiority, again raising the Son's submission to the Father, calling it (falsely) "a theological foundation for the subordination of women", and saying that its temporary nature makes it irrelevant to the gender roles issue - complimentarianism "draws more from Christ's example than it should" (an accusation that could be applied with greater merit to this book's use of Galatians 3:28 and New Testament commendations of women). Also asserts the mutual submission of the Son to the Father and of the Father to the Son (the argument is philosophical, and states no Scriptural support), leading to an assertion of total mutual submission (and, by implication, complete indistinction of function) between persons of both genders based upon the doctrine of the trinity. Foreshadows later discussion of "te representational function of church leaders" (notably missing, however, is a discussion of "the representational function of the church functioning as a community") with a discussion of mutuality within the Trinity, asserting that a "chain-of-command model simply cannot offer an adequate picture of the triune God".
Proceeds to a lengthy straw man, asserting that complementarianism believes "the nature of manhood and womanhood dictates that males lead and females follow or submit to this leadership" (in fact, complementarians believe that it is God's nature that teaches men to lead and teaches women to submit, not their natures of themselves -- even in the citations here, Piper speaks not of "natural masculinity" but of "mature masculinity", and similarly of "mature femininity" and not "natural femininity"). Asserts that complementarians draw a tenuous connection between the outworking of this in the home and in the church (1 Timothy 2 makes the connection explicit). Makes a long aside about androgyny (perhaps to show that their position is "not that radical"?), preferring instead to say that "humans can exist only as male and female, andd this primary sexual distinction is deeper than mere physical features related to reproduction" (although the authors did not earlier extend this observation to Jesus himself). In their attempt to find such distinctions, they turn immediately to secular sociologists Carol Gilligan, Milton Diamond, Arno Karlen, and Lisa Sowle Cahill, without reference to any scriptural examples, characters, or texts, proclaiming that these "contemporary findings" cause complimentarian notions of masculinity and femininity to "ring hollow", and that "these differences" (those discovered by modern sociology, which may be rooted in creation or may be rooted in the culture, sin, and the fall) "do not bar women from leadership positions in the church".
Turns to "Male and Female in Genesis 2", and the three-pronged argument that woman was created after, from, named by, and created for man. While the account of Adam existing before Eve and of Eve being created from Adam is not disputed, the implications of these for any sort of leadership issues are cast into doubt (although many of their comments are observations which are not particularly problematic to complementarianism, e.g. the woman "saving" the man from his loneliness). That the woman is named by the man is reduced from an expression of authority to a simple historic narrative since "woman" is not a proper name (but this argument is vacuous if what is in view is the male-female relationship and not merely Adam's relationship to Eve). That she is created "for the man" is redirected into a discussion of what it means for her to be a "helper suitable", naturally implying no inferiority of function, role, or office (but, in the process, dodging the issue that the woman was in fact created for the man and not visa-versa, as Paul both echoes and amplifies, preferring instead to adhere to the rather speculative notion that the woman was created for the man only to save him from his loneliness, and not to categorically help him). Proceeds to argue that sex distinctions in societies are a product of the fall, the curse, and of the hostility of the environment outside of Eden (quoting Peggy Reeves Sunday approvingly). Argues that Paul's commentary on this in 1 Tim 2:11-15 actually agrees with this interpretation (by changing its topic from church order to a purely soteriological meditation). Asserts that "With the coming of the Savior, the effects of the Fall can be overcome" (is this over-realized eschatology?), that in Christ "liberation from hierarchy [is the] fundamental principle for male-female relationships".
Sets up another straw man of complementarianism, asking "are men and women equally created in the image of God?" (complimentarianism says "yes", provided you don't say "equally" when you mean "identically" or "samely") and saying the debate "merely focuses on the question on the extent to which women possess the image of God" (complementarians also say "equally", with the same povisio). Proceeds to argue that the imago Dei is primarily a "corporate or social reality", and that therefore we only bear it rightly in a fully egalitarian community (non-sequitor), taking this to the point that "only in fellowship with others can we show forth what God is like" (reducing the imago Dei from an ontological property of our humanity to a functional one - or, even worse - diminishing it to something we may bear or not bear depending upon the content of our works).
Concludes that "the wisdom and insights of male and female are equally important to the ongoing ministry of God's people, for each gender's perspectives and experiences reflect quite different approaches to life" (but this observation does not imply that tey should share equally in eldership).
Chapter 6: Women in the Church & the Priesthood
Begins an ecclesiological argument for women's inclusion in "ordained ministry".
/todo/ - fill this out
... priesthood of believers ...
... what is ordination ...
... charismata may be requisite for some ministries, but eldership qualifications are explicitly spelled out and not stated in terms of "gifts" (teaching is a gift, but an elder must simply be "able to teach", not "gifted to teach") ...
.. suddenly takes a decidedly congregationalist turn: "pastor functions as part of the framework of congregational leaders (including laypersosns who make up a church board) and perhaps a larger pastoral staff." ...
... discusses ordination ...
... "Christian ordination was anticipated by Jesus' appointing twelve persons [...]", "In keeping with the precedent established in Jesus' calling of the twelve apostles [...]" - so exactly how does one know how much to read into His appointment of these twelve men and what not to (since their maleness is irrelevant)? ...
... laying on of hands (any scriptural example of a woman being so commissioned?) ...
... "Ordination to pastoral ministry, therefore, is embedded in the Spirit's universal calling of all to the ministry of the church and his universal endowment of all for this task." - nonsequitor/wishful speculation rather than argumentation ...
Admits that a sense of "personal call" is not authoritative and must be measured against scripture, but then goes on to say that "the repeated testimonies to an experience of call ought at least to alert us that our understanding of the Scriptures may need a thorough reevaluation" (so how many people is "enough" to "experience" something to make us re-evaluate Chalcedon? The trinity?)
Chapter 7: Women in the Ordained Ministry
Addresses functional arguments that women cannot serve in "ordained" office: "Are certain dimensions of the ordained ministry inappropriate for women?" (Straw men - Complimentarians do not believe women to be incapable of being pastors, they simply believe God has told them not to - the correct question being "is their femaleness of itself appropriate for ordination according to a Godly concept of femininity?").
... ordained office as "representative" ...
... representing Christ ...
... representing at the Eucharist (Catholic and high-liturgical traditions) ...
... ontological representation ...
"It is is [Christ's] being fully human which enables him to represent all humanity, both male and female, before God", quoting Stephen Barton approvingly - are you saying that a male (which Jesus was, without argument) can represent both male and female? Do we have any basis for believing a female can? What is to be made of this? ... "Jesus' humanity was a theological necessity based on an important theological principle: what the Son did not assume in the incarnation he could not redeem" - did He assume femininity? Or, alternately, was his assumption of creatureliness sufficient? WTF is "Jesus' inclusive humanness"? "To suggest [...] that the incarnation in the form of a male [may ave been a] soteriological necessity [...] would undercut Christ's status as representing all humane -- male and female -- in salvation" (unless, of course, man is the representative head of woman, in which case it works effortlessly).
... leadership authority and teaching authority ...
"[...] the maleness of the twelve apostles does not provide sufficient grounds from which to conclude that all ordained persons must be male" - true, it's a piece of evidence, not a proof, but (again) what are we to take away from the twelve (see above)?
The twelve -- eschatological sign, reflecting on the twelve tribes, reconstituting God's covenant people, etc
If "women can't represent Christ", they should logically be excluded from all ministry (but this is not the Complimentarian position, which says that only particular ministries are restricted, and that only because God says so and not because of any line of logical deduction).
Nature of leadership - again, all sociology and no Bible - Gary A. Yukl, John W. Gardner, W. Warren Burke.
States that "church structure is always subservient to mission" - no, everything is subservient to Jesus Christ, and if our notion of "mission" leads us to do something He said not to do, we find ourselves in King Saul's shoes.
"[...] the New Testament emphasis on facilitative leadership means that leaders of both genders best serve the church" - non sequitor if by "leaders" we mean "ordained elders". Men and women can contribute their unique perspectives without requiring female elders.
... argues against an antique notion of leadership styles, citing Robert Greenleaf approvingly
"the complementarians' more hierarchical understanding of church structure tends to undermine their good intention to maintain a servant focus." - BS
... more arguments from pragmatics (women's greater perceptiveness) ...
... "absurdity of permitting women to teach impressionable children but not men who should possess the spiritual acumen to discern heretical statements" ...
... prophecy listed ahead of teaching in one Pauline list (but not others) ... more misrepresentation of the prophetic office and gift ...
... the "compromise" position ...
... "Christ entrusted final authority to the entire people of God" -- hyper-congregationalism??? - leaders "function under the authority of the entire congregation they serve" ... Yuck! ... "serve under the authority of a body that includes females" (which is why many denoms excluded women from voting, to keep that paradox out, never mind that "the congregation's authority" is a fiction, it is Christ who gives "pastors and teachers", Eph 4) ...
Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry
... What is power? (More secular sociology) John Kenneth Galbraith: Condign, compensatory, conditioned power... Yukl ... Max Weber ... Karl Rahner (Roman Catholic) ... Richard Sennett ...
Quoting Madeline Boucer approvingly: "On the one side we have authority, power, the male: God as Father, Jesus Christ as Lord, and the pastor and father as representative of God and Christ. On the other side we have submission, powerlessness, the female -- and no corresponding connection between God, Christ, and woman." (...except that she is "the church", i.e., "the body of Christ", etc...)
... exousia v. dynamis ...
"[Jesus] possessed the authority of the Son sent by the Father with a mission, namely, to inaugurate God's reign on the earth for the sake of needy people." (What about the cross? And doesn't this again suggest some sort of ontological submission - that it wasn't Jesus' idea to come to earth?)
"[...] Jesus never exercised authority through the display of power with the purpose of dominating [...]" (what about defeating Satan, sin, and death on the cross - the power of His resurrection?)
... quote Piper and Grudem approvingly: "for Christians, right and power recede and responsibility predominates", but goes on to say they are maintaining a "basically authoritarian conception of the ordained ministry" - WTF?
... "Leaders use the authority delegated to them by the people" ... WTF? Anyone else smell a revolt in the desert coming on?
Notes that elders should not 'rule' the church but rather 'care' for it per 1Tim 3:4-5, ignoring its explicit maleness ("a one-woman man").
... "the derived nature of clerical authority" ... actual legitimate authority derives from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, not from the community. That which derives from the community is pure human institution and corporate fiction.
E. Margaret Howe, John W. Gardner, Edgar H. Schein
In sum, their point is that "the differences between the sexes demand the inclusion of both in leadership", and that there is nothing in those differences, whether viewed humanistically as in the last few chapters or viewed scripturally (???) as in earlier chapters, that should be seen as in any way imposing any sort of norms or restrictions upon gender roles.
Doc's Take
Just finished. /TODO/...
The book is a little tricky because the writing style oscillates between surveying alternative points of view and arguing for a particular one, which can tend to leave the reader confused -- are they stating their own position, or citing someone else's approvingly, or citing it as an alternate argument which they reject which reaches the conclusion they want, or are they approvingly citing some fragment of a complementarian argument while wishing to nuance or limit its application? The reader may often find himself more than a page away from the answer.
Even setting that aside, the argumentation can get a little sloppy, many incidents of bait-and-switch, straw men, and otherwise misrepresenting instead of addressing and arguing with an accurate complementarian position.
While the book's subtitle is "A Biblical Theology of Women In Ministry", much of the "biblical" argumentation rests upon uncertainty, obscurity, and doubt. "It is not entirely clear what is meant by this verse" is a common refrain. This conveys the sense that the egalitarian position dwells almost entirely within uncertainty rather than upon exegetical or theological clarity. The "developmental" argument from Galatians 3:28 aside, one is hard pressed to find even a single ex scriptura argument in this book which is not couched in some posited uncertainty (whether legitimate or imagined) as to the meaning of the scriptural text. This alone should raise red flags for evangelicals who take scripture seriously; if the only way for a position to be plausible is for a number of scriptures to be dismissed as "having unclear meanings" while no scriptures directly imply the position itself without substantial wrangling and argumentation, the position has very little "biblical high ground" upon which to stand.
...
I am skeptical of the appeal to "foundational doctrinal commitments" as the context for understanding a text given Grentz' own postfoundationalism; in essence, he has argued elsewhere (see Reclaiming the Center and Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church) that Christians cannot really speak of doctrine as "foundational" and mean anything beyond "the way our particular community, which is self-describedly Christian, happens to talk". So where a "foundational doctrinal commitment" is not fully synergistic with the text -- it follows easily and immediately from all throughout the text while casting light and clarity throughout the text -- it begins to look like just another guise for subjectivism, perspectivalism, and other vehicles of neo-liberal undermining of biblical orthodoxy.
...
The closing chapters take a remarkably ascriptural approach to the whole matter, considering instead contemporary developments in management theory, organizational theory, and various contemporary definitions of "power" and "authority", almost all derived from works of secular sociology, to argue that there is no functional or pragmatic reason for women to be excluded from ordained ministry. But these questions are fundamentally uninteresting if scripture excludes women from eldership, because God is not bound to explain His decisions to us in the terms we would understand (pragmatics, etc).
