Two Views of Women in Ministry - Book Report/Review Example

Gender Paper Gender Paper Source Two Views of Women in Ministry is based on a key debate issue regarding women’s roles in themodern-day church and ministry. Regardless of the side of the deliberations one may take, there does not seem to be any definitive conclusion between the egalitarian and complementarian views. This part of the paper will summarize and evaluate the views and arguments as presented by Linda Belleville and Craig Keener for the egalitarian side and Craig Blomberg and Thomas Schreiner for the complementarian side. The egalitarian view opines that both genders should be given equal opportunities to serve in the church and ministry (Beck & Gundry, 2005). On the other hand, the complementarian view holds that roles in the ministry should differ for the two genders. Two Views of Women in Ministry is presented as more of an essay rather than an explanation and interpretation of the egalitarian and complementarian views. Essentially, none of the four contributors aims at questioning the value of women, but try to answer what they believe is taught by the bible regarding the role of women in church. The central theme of Two Views of Women in Ministry is based on Galatians 3:28 which states that all people have equal access and right to salvation, with both viewpoints drawing supporting passages from Genesis 1-3. This prompted the egalitarians towards interpreting that to mean that all people have equal access and right to church and ministry roles. Hence, their argument in the book is about whether or not there is equality among the roles of pastors or leaders in the church and, specifically, men’s placing over men in a congregation. Belleville acknowledges the divisions regarding the discussions of what has been experienced in the past five decades in the churches. She first points to the key achievements realized in the secular world through gender equality as well as the achievements gender equality has made as a concept. She then shifts to asking why the same model does not exist in most of the contemporary evangelical denominations. According to her, the issue appears to be more than simply the argument of gender. Rather, it is an argument about the teachings of the bible on the hierarchical configurations that exist in the relationship between males and females (Beck & Gundry, 2005). Belleville’s opinion is based on four questions she asks regarding women as church leaders. She first asks whether the hierarchical configurations between men and women are taught in the bible. Then she asks whether women are portrayed in the bible as holding leadership positions. Her third question is whether women take on the same roles of leadership as men in the bible. Her final question is whether women are limited by the bible from taking up certain roles of leadership. Contributing from the complementarian view, Bloomberg bases his argument on balancing the issue, acknowledging the hurt that the two sides have experienced. However, he also emphasizes that there is more to the problem than just the emotions of some who make it a bigger issue than what is truly taught in the scriptures. His contributions highlight classical points that have been discussed from a moderate complementarian perspective and approach because, even though a complementarian, he believes women are allowed some leadership position in church by the bible. He opines that all people should equally access the Spirit’s gifts in a manner God deems appropriate to bestow upon them. So long as they all have the common purpose of bringing wisdom to their followers, men and women should share leadership roles in church. The third contributor is Keener who backs the egalitarian view. He presents his point early in his argument by stating that ministry by women is allowed by the bible under normal circumstances. He explains that it is only under exceptional situations that such ministry is prohibited and implores readers to allow it in most situations (Beck & Gundry, 2005). By discussing the issue through referring to women of the Old Testament, he takes on the same approach as Bellville. However, his presentation seems to be founded on what he considers to be the practical aspects of women in ministry, especially when he compares Deborah with the apostles of the New Testament. Schreiner, the last contributor, supports the complementarian view by noting that historically, his movement has been the church’s consensus. In an attempt to narrow the gap between the two perspectives and in keeping with the central theme, he illustrates the significance of women in church and ministry. Without relenting on his complementarian he explains that women’s and men’s roles are equally important in church but must necessarily differ. When considering leading men, he claims the roles must be different. He argues that women are not permitted by the bible to hold leadership positions over men or even to teach men. He further points out that there are many other roles for women in church and ministry apart from those of being placed over men in authority. He attempts to offer evidence for this argument by referring to the effects of culture in terms of the way the scriptures are perceived. His point is that women were used in ministry by Jesus to exemplify love, forgiveness and righteousness (Beck & Gundry, 2005). He stresses it with the example of Jesus’ feet being washed by the tears of a woman and wiped by her hair. It is the same women who financed the ministry of Jesus, joined prayer groups with men and cared for the needy. Most importantly, he explains that women have served as evangelists, prophets and deacons, but none of them was a pastor or teacher of congregations. In an approach similar to Belleville’s Schreiner addresses the equality in terms of men’s and women’s personhood. An analysis of the above arguments and views shows that the book offers a broad scope of deliberations on what role women play in the church and ministry, with both views providing thoughtful analyses of the subject. The most notable approach is that both arguments are based on the contributors’ judicious biblical understanding of the role of women in church, albeit from opposing sides. For instance, all four contributors make reference to 1Timothy 2:11, which adds weight to either side of the argument. Viewed from the egalitarian angle, it seems Paul was suggesting the segregation of church services by gender in a manner similar to happened in synagogues. From the complementarian angle, the verse by Paul forms the foundation of the thought that women are not allowed to hold the office of a pastor (Beck & Gundry, 2005). This gives the views the nature of a collection of essays rather than a set of analyses but, when addressed on the basis of individual contributors, they can actually be acknowledged as analyses. It is difficult to determine whether a particular objective was realized or not by looking at the book in its entirety. Each contributor attempts to establish and develop their course of argument by taking biblical perspectives to task while remaining faithful to their commentaries. Looking at Belleville’s contributions, she seems to be focused on the deconstruction of the significance of the creation of gender as found in the first two chapters of Genesis. By attempting to do away with sequence of creation as well as Adam and Eve’s naming by referring to her earlier writings, it gives a feeling of having an agenda. Critical evaluation may also raise questions about her sincerity in her contributions. However, the reader has the ultimate judgment depending on which side of the contributions appears more convincing, but judgment will draw individual emotions. But the significance of Belleville’s contributions is founded on the notion of the church’s hierarchical configuration, even though it is by placing more weight on relative experiences rather than interpreting biblical teachings (Beck & Gundry, 2005). Her example seems to stem from an attempt to create a thought pattern rather than interpret a widow’s condition as taught in the bible. Bloomberg focuses is contributions on the structure of the female and male creation of the family and home. He is seen to easily communicate that men are more placed in leadership positions than women by the consistency of the way their roles are described in the bible, although he also seems to be contributing from a hesitant position. This makes him a moderate complementarian who emphasizes on the illustrations of gifted women, which also means readers make their own judgments. Keener defends egalitarianism by not differentiating between leadership by women and ministry by women, which gives his ideas an appearance of continuity than Belleville’s. He also, however, seems to be making many assumptions and relying on experiences more than biblical teachings. Schreiner’s views are representative of the general complementarian perspective. Basically, his belief in the bible and its teachings is displayed. Although he contributes his own ideas, he also seems to be using those presented by the egalitarians to further his argument. For instance, the egalitarians claim that the fact that meetings for church officials were held in houses belonging to women is an indication that they were also leaders. He counters that even though a church meeting was conducted in Mary’s house, it is evident from the writings of the bible that that church’s leaders were Peter, James and John. Another argument directed act he egalitarians’ contributions targets Belleville’s attempt to deconstruct God’s design for the creation order. Therefore, he acknowledges that God created all people equally but still emphasizes that there was a reason and meaning of the creation order. Therefore, just like the egalitarians, he quotes verses from the bible to oppose the egalitarian view. His interpretations seem harsh and oppressive, especially when he insists that it was Eve, and not Adam, that was deceived. His arguments are doctrinal, yet they also allow women teaching privileges in informal settings. It can be concluded that Two Views of Women in Ministry ultimately leaves persuasion to the reader. Although Belleville and Schreiner seem to be informed by personal opinions to some degree, the contributors from both sides prove themselves to be well informed on the teachings of the bible as well as traditions of the church. Each contributor provided both educational and entertaining essays, holding firm to their beliefs while critiquing those of different opinions respectfully. Schreiner’s essay is not as exhaustive in terms of explaining and interpreting as Belleville’s, but both are important because readers get to see the debate from two perspectives and draw their own conclusion. Source # 2 In his book Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender, John Stackhouse Jr tries to show that it is possible to be an authentic Christian as well as authentic feminist. His definition of a feminist is a person who understands the dignity, responsibilities and rights of women and glorifies them as being equally significant to those of men (Stackhouse, 2005). This part of the paper will summarize and analyze the views presented in Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender. The author begins with laying out his justification for why a new model towards understanding the roles of gender is needed in churches and homes for modern Christians. He then proposes the way forward by asserting the egalitarian and complementarian, or feminist and patriarchal readings of the bible, concepts he explain exist alongside each other biblically. According to his views in the book, although equality is a biblical notion, a God also permits patriarchy and regulates it through his larger purposes of kingdom. The book was written with the intention of assisting people who want to support the egalitarian perspective genuinely but are unable to get the same support from the bible. The author attempts to give an account his own conversion to feminism. As he grew up in a home that he describes as having its focus mainly on the family, he started questioning why his mother, whom he considered as having spiritual competence, was not allowed to lead a worship service (Stackhouse, 2005). He notes that it is only men who led services and prayers, and the answers he sought from the church regarding the situation were not satisfactory. While still attending college, he even discusses the issues with his future wife. Later in the advent of changing societal customs, when his own marriage, which was egalitarian, appeared to lack theological foundations. When he realized that even biblical scholars were unable to interpret and explain 1Tomoth 2:11, he went through a major paradigm shift. From the shift, he explains that he learnt that is not necessary for Christians to wait for interpretations and explanations of all relevant bible passages for them to make assessments and conclusion on gender based on theological grounds. Rather, he opines that Christians ought to approach the texts with as open minds as possible, objectively trying to make the most sense out of the conflicting interpretations. He builds his gender-understanding model on basic principles of equality and holy pragmatism as well as an understanding of the end of the world, how God will judge humankind after death and the emergence of the modern creation. He argues in support of holy pragmatism in a way that is troubling. This is because he says spreading the teachings of the scriptures is the fundamental duty for Christians, which he further explains allows them to sacrifice matters considered secondary to the scriptures. He goes ahead to explain the principle of accommodation used by God, which means He works with what He and humans have (Stackhouse, 2005). In that sense, he claims, even though Christians are afforded radical freedom through Christ, there are historical as well as modern circumstances that require women in Christianity to surrender liberty and completeness. Rather, they should allow patriarchy to reduce them and even their rights to certain actions taken away. He agrees with the patriarchal nature of the Old Testament’s first five books while the New Testament is also full of hierarchies in the churches and homes. His explanation for this is that the people who wrote the scriptures accommodated societal customs advanced by the gospel. When traditional societies were patriarchal as is evidenced in the New Testament, scandals were avoided by the church by simply going along with the societies. However, he also offers that in the cultural perspective of the modern world that is formally recognized as egalitarian, it is scandalous for the church not to emulate the society. The scandal is an impediment to both evangelism and the preservation and growth of faith of people who have already been converted. He opines that in that way, the church fails to rejoice in the exceptional liberty to allow men and women to offer services basing on their gift without subjective gender divisions. According to Stackhouse, Jesus treated patriarchy in the same manner he treated the rest of the customs and laws that existed during his time (Stackhouse, 2005). He describes Jesus’ treatment of patriarchy as ambiguous, subversive and suggestive but not revolutionary in an immediate manner outside the core subject of his mission and person. He explains that Jesus is the main scandal of his own career and dissociates the person of Jesus with feminism, the ending of slavery and Jewish emancipation. He further feels that any other cause is good but only implicit in the ministry of Jesus. At best, according to Stackhouse, they are only embryonic and, therefore, the accommodation of the various social distinctions by Jesus must be acknowledged and accounted for in people’s models as regards gender. By looking deeply at the bible and the church’s history, he believes that God has been more accommodating to himself regarding the sins and weaknesses displayed by humankind. In the same manner, those faithful to Him are called to that kind of accommodation. As a person who admits to be an egalitarian, Stackhouse presents his opinions from that perspective. However, an analysis of Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender shows that Stackhouse portrays and explains complementarian and egalitarian proponents as being both right and wrong. He communicates that the gospel contains messages useful to both genders and that feminism or egalitarianism is not a notion contrary to the messages (Stackhouse, 2005). This, however, may be disappointing from one perspective because Stackhouse openly focuses on the writings of Paul rather than interpreting the teachings of Jesus. Then, in a way that confirms the author’s lack of committing to a single perspective, he still say that egalitarianism cannot be considered as a core component of the gospel. According to him, any message on egalitarianism needs to be abandoned if it threatens the spreading of the gospel. To readers who believe feminist to be a core component of the gospel, it is not credible portray to them that the gospel can be spread without it. This view can be supported by direct comparison to a biblical teaching where you are not expected to claim to be following Jesus yet openly declared that you do not care for the poor or love your enemy. By declaring himself an egalitarian but providing arguments for both sides of the perspectives, Stackhouse presents a discourse that is highly readable. His argument for egalitarianism is founded on the notion of God being accommodative to humans. With regards to gender, he claims that even God works via a patriarchal culture when he commanded that men love their wives but not eliminate their positions and roles of power. In further using the biblical writings of Paul to support his ideas, he asserts that slavery was not forbidden by Paul and Jesus. According to him, Paul and Jesus only gave people their teachings in ways that prepared people for the abolition of slavery, which again gives his work a shifty stand, although he supports it with reference to the Old Testament. He appears to be using gender as an excuse to impose authority over women. This is especially so when he suggests that the bible inherently bears a directive for Christians to spread the gospel even if occasions occur in which divisions between the genders must be promoted for that purpose. On the same note, he says that, in patriarchal societies, when men who refuse to listen to female missionaries or disregard female priests in authority, it is necessary to make the women assume background roles to give way to men (Stackhouse, 2005). The book does acceptably well in responding to criticisms presented by typically complementarian Christians. This is especially so in the way the critical roles of interpretation are pointed out when addressing gender issues. Further analysis shows that, for example, Stackhouse supports the idea that the writers of the New Testament had a general belief that the coming back of Jesus was not known by humans. To this end, their work was designed to suit their historical and cultural contexts (Stackhouse, 2005). Viewed with this notion in mind, Stackhouse asserts that since Jesus is yet to come back, some writings of the New Testament must be explained interpreted differently than previously taught so as to work with modern society. This seems directly in conflict with his self-proclaimed egalitarian stand, because he says that the different explanations and interpretations should include reconsidering the position of women in leadership and teaching even if it means relegating them to non leadership positions. Ideally, a critic would have expected Stackhouse to present sufficient reflection on humankind’s original creation before deliberating on the egalitarian and complementarian issue. By starting the book by explaining his own background does not convince readers that the author really understands, or even views as significant, why God divided humans into male and female. He seems too keen on criticizing the inductive approach towards studying the teachings of the scripture. However, he is quite successful in provoking the thoughts of readers through his distinctive and direct honesty about what he thinks, even though he seems inconsistent at times. References Beck, J., & Gundry, S. (2005). Two views on women in ministry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Stackhouse, J.G. (2005). Finally feminist: A pragmatic Christian understanding of gender. Michigan: Grand Rapids. Read More