 |
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
In a spirit of mutual edification, I present here an analysis of and a response to an important book: In The Spirit We're Equal. In this book the author, Susan C. Hyatt, takes a
"revival perspective" on what the Bible says about the role of women and the work of the Holy Spirit in and through women. As her choice of title indicates, Mrs Hyatt teaches that God makes no gender-based
distinctions in society, in the church, or in the family. In doing so she also presumes a relationship between the worth of a person and the role they fulfill. She defines a Biblical Egalitarian
as one who accepts such a world view (p. 246), and she claims this is God's perspective. She states her thesis in chapter 1: "The prevailing theology that men are to exercise authoritative headship while women are to submit graciously is problematic, unbiblical and destructive." (p. 9)
I respond to Mrs Hyatt's teaching, who I will hereafter refer to as the author, since I believe her conclusion is incorrect and quite harmful to the family and the church. I believe God commands men to lead
their families, churches and communities with loving sacrificial concern, and I also believe that God commands women to respectfully submit to this leadership. My purpose is to explore the author's work in detail and demonstrate
beyond any reasonable doubt that her teaching is inconsistent with God's Word, the Bible. In this response I quote the Bible often. I encourage you to carefully read these quotes in full rather than skimming over
them. The truth is more quickly discovered by reading the Bible very carefully and thinking humbly and prayerfully about what is actually written there. I also quote and paraphrase the author as needed to represent
her work, enclosing page references in parentheses. It may be helpful to have a copy of the author's work available, but this should not be necessary to appreciate my response. I also make the following general assumptions:
Preface In her opening paragraph the author states that she assumes the truth of Biblical
Egalitarianism; she does not intend to demonstrate that her teaching is true: "This book... is not designed as an argument for biblical equality. It is, instead, an affirmation for men and women for whom this biblical truth is
already a living reality." (ix) The author does not pretend to be an unbiased, objective observer as she teaches this concept, she is merely presenting to readers who share her view what she presumes to be true. This is an
important perspective to note. We should not expect a balanced treatment of the subject, where opposing views are presented and objectively evaluated. As mentioned above, it is also important to recognize from the
outset that the author makes an assumption which underpins her work: she assumes that there is a direct relationship between the role a person fulfills and their worth. This assumption is evident even in her choice of title. The
author implicitly insists that a person who accepts a role involving submission or obedience also acknowledges that they are inferior and not as valuable or significant as those they serve. The author relies upon this assumption
repeatedly to conclude that when God demonstrates equality of worth and significance between genders He must also discard all gender-based role distinctions. Further, anyone claiming that an authoritative role is given by God to
males is thus inherently accused of devaluing females. I intend to show that this assumption contradicts the Bible. It is also important to note the author's progression in coming to her conclusion that Biblical
Egalitarianism is true. She testifies in the Preface that she began this journey with an awareness that her experience with spiritual beings, which guide and affirm her, has consistently been inconsistent with the
contrary. She believes these influences have been the Holy Spirit. She gives no indication how she has determined this. We must consider her testimony is in light of the fact that God soberly warns us of the
presence of counterfeit spirits that seek to deceive and destroy us by imitating the Holy Spirit. "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not
received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (2 Co 11:4) God warns that in the last days, "some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils
." (1 Tim 4:1) Not all spiritual activity is holy, but most all spirit beings pretend to be holy when this is needful to carry out their purpose. Perhaps the author assumes immunity here, or perhaps she is in
ignorance. She does not mention this concept anywhere in her work, though the integrity of the entire presentation depends explicitly upon this concept. Admitting that one might be deceived is indeed a humbling thing, but ignoring
the very possibility of it is extremely foolish. In developing her theories, the author moved from this purely experiential perspective to a selective analysis of history, researching various historical movements
that endorsed Biblical Egalitarianism in some measure. In doing so she evidently did not follow any guidelines as to what types of historical witness are valid expressions of truth, but apparently presumed that any recorded
supernatural activity within Christendom is indeed activity of the Holy Spirit. Becoming fully convinced of the truth of Biblical Egalitarianism based upon her experience, and finding some evidence of this
perspective in her historical research, the author completed her journey by looking for ways to re-interpret a number of biblical texts which appear to contradict her conclusion, accepting the fact that there should be no
contradiction between the activity of the Holy Spirit and the Bible. Once satisfied that she could more or less address the Scriptures from her point of view, she began to publish her research. One may conclude from
this testimony that it was not a study of the written Word of God that brought the author to her conclusion, but rather her spiritual experience. After coming to her conclusion she found certain historical examples to lend support,
as well as potential explanations accommodating the more glaring biblical contradictions. I find the author's methodology in arriving at her conclusion on such a controversial subject irrational and self-deceiving.
I believe the ideal methodology for doing such a thing is quite the reverse of the author's... not only in sequence but also in emphasis. Rather than approaching the Scripture last and picking and poking at a few scattered texts to
garner some measly witness, I would begin by composing a list of every biblical reference related to my subject and explain in complete detail how each is consistent with my thesis. Then I would use the general experiences and
thoughts of others (both historical and current as appropriate) to provide examples and context for the health of my teaching and its general reception in the actual Body of Christ (which is indeed not the same as "Christendom").
Finally, I would indicate how my own experience is consistent with my conclusions. This approach is quite the opposite of the author's... and I am not aware of any proponent of Biblical Egalitarianism who has approached the subject
in this manner. Even so, using such superficial "affirmation" methodology, though she has no intent to validate Biblical Egalitarianism, she does claim she has "precluded patriarchy's right to rule." (xii) A final
observation from the Preface concerns the author's testimony of a woman who was publicly reproved for disagreeing with a presentation denying Biblical Egalitarianism. The author states that if Biblical Egalitarianism is not true,
"it would shatter (the woman's) self-esteem, her faith in the goodness of God, and her confidence in The Book she had studied and loved." (9) Rather than expressing a willingness to conform her faith, self-value and confidence in
the Bible to the truth -- whatever the truth is -- the author has evidently decided that women are only able to accept Biblical Egalitarianism. Yet when a person does not love truth above all convenience and pleasure they are
poised to receive a lie... and the enemy will surely provide them a convincing one. Introduction: It Is Important That We Get It Right In her first biblical reference, while encouraging the reader to develop a proper sense of urgency concerning her topic in chapter 1, the author chooses Matthew
20:25-26, quoting Jesus saying with emphasis, "Don't rule over one another!" (4) This quote is striking, given that the text actually reads as follows, "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the
princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister."
Jesus does not actually forbid one person to rule over another, as the author claims, but rather indicates that true greatness does not retain a desire to rule over another ("...whosever will be great.."). Jesus is
giving instruction in motive, not position: this is a completely different concept than the author proposes. The author's mis-quote violates the concept of biblical rulers
in society, the church and in the family. God indicates that He has placed rulers in each of these contexts for our benefit. In society God says, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou
then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." (Rom 13:3) Does the author suppose that such rulers cannot be Christians?
God has also placed rulers within the church: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for
that is unprofitable for you." (Heb 13:17) Consider also God's design for the family: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1Tim 3:5) God's
intention, stated in these last two texts (unmentioned by the author anywhere in her book), is for men to rule in the home and in the church in order to "take care of" families and saints. The author's mis-quote of Jesus implies
that anyone serving in this manner would violate His explicit command. However, a man may certainly accept responsibility humbly as a ruler without desiring to be lord of another, and others may submit to his rule obediently
and voluntarily without violating any command of Christ. In her second biblical reference, she quotes Jesus again from Matthew 23:1-12: "Don't call one another by authority laden titles!" Below, again, is the actual
text. 1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, On careful examination, the author's quote is evidently a gross approximation which both misrepresents and contradicts the immediate context. The author mis-quotes Jesus as vehemently denouncing the use of any title
that acknowledges authority, yet Jesus is actually condemning the love of public status, expecially among religious leaders, as an ungodly disposition. He does not imply that it is wrong
for us to use titles appropriate to duly appointed authority, but focuses on the ungodly love of such titles. His only overt prohibition in addressing others is in verse 9, where He says we are not to refer
to ourselves as the spiritual seed of a mortal man ("father"), seeing that all saints are begotten of a mutual spiritual Father. This "fatherhood" that Jesus addresses as an inappropriate relationship to claim with another man is a
matter of spiritual conception, not a matter of authority. His injunction is perfectly consistent with the entire revelation of God. The author's mis-quote is not. It is appropriate to note that the entire context
is one in which Jesus is addressing men as equals in value while some men retain a spiritual authority over others. While the author would have us believe that Jesus disapproves of anyone having authority over another in the
spiritual realm, in this text Jesus acknowledges the authority of the Aaronic priesthood (vs 2) and bids all to obey those who function within it. (vs 3) (Incidentally, among such priests were only men, no women ever held such an
office). In essence, while the author believes that the concept of having authority implies an inherent superiority/inferiority relationship, Jesus is saying that authority/submission and mutual equality are entirely independent
concepts and that these concepts exist in harmony by His design. The Response and Reaction of Women The author continues with possible responses from women when Biblical Egalitarianism is denied. She
composes five possibilites, all of which are negative. She does not consider that a godly woman might find fulfillment in being under the benign authoritative headship of a loving husband, as did Sarah Edwards... the wife of
Jonathan Edwards, whom God used as a spearhead in the first Great Awakening. Details of Sarah's loving devotion to her husband and family, and the dramatic affects of her influence among 1400 of their descendants, are well known.
Her children have arisen and called her blessed... indeed. This is not something I have commonly observed among feminists... "biblical" or otherwise. Abuse - The Bad Fruit of Fallen Humanity... Among Christians?
The author then considers in detail many sad and ungodly abuses of women in various cultures down through the ages... none of which have any real bearing on her thesis. The author apparently includes these sad details in
order to lead us to associate any rejection of Biblical Egalitarianism with such vile abuse. It appears to be an emotional entanglement to discourage any negative response to her claims. This is a manipulative "guilt by
association" tactic... the fact that wicked men who reject Biblical Egalitarianism have often abused women does not mean that Biblical Egalitarianism is good, even if this abuse is perpetrated by those who claim Christ. Attitudes
of voluntary subjection in women toward men and male acceptance of responsibility for the welfare of women through benign leadership do not necessarily result in abuse. Dealing with Our Procrustes The
author concludes chapter 1 with a morbid illustration from Greek Mythology, picturing how destructive it is to insist on making a concept fit within pre-concieved and contradictory beliefs. The author evidently does not believe she
is doing this, and that those who resist her teaching are. Summary In
summary, the evidence for Biblical Egalitarianism given in this first chapter is: I find nothing compelling here to persuade us that Biblical Egalitarianism is true.
Chapter 2: Jesus, Friend of Women In the second chapter the author capitalizes on her assumption of a
correlation between equality of worth and equality of role. Leveraging this assumption, the author tries to demonstrate that when Jesus Christ treated women consistently with their worth that He also discarded all gender-based
distinctions. She provides as context nothing from the Scripture itself, but rather a number of ancient quotes which clearly degrade women and contradict the essence of the Word of God. These quotes do appear to be extreme, not
representative of common ancient culture as revealed in the Gospel narratives. The author then attempts to show that Jesus' confrontation of such ungodliness in His public ministry eradicated all gender-based role differences. Jesus Demonstrates the Personhood of a Woman, John 8:3-11. In her first formal biblical reference in this book, the author claims that when Jesus spoke directly to the woman taken in adultery He
"demonstrated an entirely different set of values" (15) than what He had initially defined in the Law. She makes a number of additional claims in her commentary on this story, yet gives no evidence for any of these claims. The
entire biblical text is as follows. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in The author claims that the reason the Law required stoning the
adulterous woman was that she was now "damaged goods" (15) due to her adulterous behavior and had brought disgrace on her husband. She offers no support for her claim. The author claims the only reason an adulterous
man was to be stoned was that he had "misused another man's property." (15) She offers no support for her claim. The author also claims that cultural norms prohibited Jesus to speak with the woman at all (16), yet
gives no support for this claim. She merely claims that rabbi's often considered it beneath their dignity to speak with women in public (14), not that anyone was prohibited from so doing. The author also claims that
Jesus did not treat the adulterous woman as a man's property, but that simply by speaking to her He denied that she belonged to her husband and was instead a person of great value, implying that property
cannot be spoken to, have infinite value or be of human form. She gives no evidence to support her reasoning, which does contradict the Law: the Law indicates that a man
can be owned as property and yet retain infinite worth and dignity. ("If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing." Ex 21:1) Further, it is unclear
exactly how God's merely speaking to someone validates them. He spoke to a tree, ("And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he... said unto it..." Mt 21:19) as well as to Satan. ("Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me,
Satan..." Lk 4:8a) Lastly the author claims that Jesus spoke to this adulterous woman with tenderness and compassion... yet this she merely presumes; such compassion is not evident in the story itself. As evidence
to the contrary, Jesus refused to address or comfort this woman in any sense in the presence of her accusers but waited until they all departed before addressing her. During this period He gave proper order to her execution,
admitting that she fully deserved to be fatally abused in a most horriffic manner; His only stipulation was entirely independent of her welfare, that those who initiated her destruction be sinless (therefore above governmental law,
which forbade capital punishment carried out by citizenry: John 18:31). Further, He neither accepted nor condemned her when He did finally address her, He merely maintained neutrality by refusing to condemn her after admitting that
she fully deserved to be destroyed. His parting words to her can hardly be considered tender: "Go, and sin no more." (vs 11) Mattew 9:20-22
In a second reference under this same point, the author claims that when Jesus allowed a ritually unclean woman to touch Him that Jesus discarded religious rules and rulers to help her. However, the author provides no evidence of any rules forbidding Jesus to allow such people to touch Him. All we know is that He might naturally have become ceremonially unclean when He permitted this (Le 5:2)... which was certainly within His prerogative and something He practiced without regard to gender. (Mk 1:41)
Jesus Shows Woman's Equality in Marriage, Matthew 19:1-11. The author claims that Jesus rejected the portions of the Law which acknowledge a husband's ownership of his wife and permit him to divorce her at
will while not giving a wife these same rights. She says, "He clearly demonstrated that the man and the woman were to have the same rights and responsibilities in their relationships toward each other. This is mutuality."
(16) She references Matthew 19:3 and Mark 10:2-12. Both texts are quite similar and are given in full consequtively. Matthew 19:1-11 Mark 10:2-12 It is unclear how the author finds either text in support of her claims. Neither
text nullifies any principle of the Law; neither text mentions any rights or responsibilities of either husbands or wives. Jesus simply declares that divorce is not God's original intent in marriage and that anyone breaking the
marriage bond is guilty of adultery. This does not contradict the Law as the author claims; Jesus is simply placing the Law in context so that it will be properly applied rather than twisted into a license to sin, as the Pharisees
had done. Since God permits husbands to have multiple wives (Ex 21:10) any husband divorcing his wife in order to marry another, or for any other frivolous motive, evidences an adulterous spirit. This observation
does not imply that husbands and wives have the same roles in marriage, only that they should both be fully committed to the marriage. Consider that polygamy is never forbidden by Jesus for men and never allowed for women. Jesus Shows Woman's Equal Social Status
John 4:1-26, 39-42. The author, referring to the interaction between Christ and the woman at Jacob's well, claims that women are to receive honor equal to that afforded men since Jesus spoke to this woman, treated her with respect and dignity and gave her profound revelation concerning Himself. While it is evidently true that all people are to be treated thusly, this does not in fact imply that all people are to function in equivalent roles, which appears to be the author's implication and is an evidence of her implicit assumption concerning role and worth. All that one may conclude from this interaction is that it is appropriate for women to be spoken to and taught by men and that women are to be treated with respect. Jesus also treats children similarly (Matt 19:14), but never implies that children are not to obey their parents. Treating one another with respect and dignity is not inconsistent with benign headship and voluntary submission; it does not imply what the author claims.
Jesus Projects God in the Image of Woman, Luke 15:8-10. The author believes that Jesus' parable about a woman rejoicing over a lost dowry indicates that God is as much female as He is male. The text
is: "Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her
neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." On close
inspection, the text does not support the author's claim, but merely states that there is joy in the presence of the angels when a sinner repents. There are, in fact, others in the presence of the angels than God Himself... Enoch,
Moses and Elijah were apparently in heaven among the angels when Jesus spoke this. (Ge 5:24, Mt 17:3) Even if this were not the case, to claim that God is as much female as male, in light of such massive evidence to the contrary,
simply because His joy is comparable to the joy of a woman finding something precious to her is... to me... absurd. It is interesting to observe here that the notion of female deity was not at all strange to ancient
culture: most pagan religion sought to seduce God's people through this concept. Many references to the "queen of heaven" in Jeremiah indicate that this deception often plagued Israel. The fact that God never reveals Himself as
female was not because the idea was so intrinsically offensive to ancient patriarchal culture. In fact, to propose such an idea that God would deliberately present a distorted or imbalanced revelation of Himself to accomodate any
cultural prejudice -- which is easily implied from the author's comments -- violates His nature: He does not accommodate wickedness in the essence of His revelation. To do so would be to condone and perpetuate this wickedness.
God's motive is always to promote wholesomeness, purity and light... never to reinforce instistutionalized sin as a compromise to make His revelation more acceptable. Jesus Rejects the Notion of "
Woman's Role" Luke 8:19-21. In light of Jesus disassociation from His earthly family when He acknowledged that His disciplies were His true family, the author states, "Jesus demolishes... the notion of gender-restricted
roles; that is, that women have their place and it is only a rebellious woman who would resist or override this role.... By His behavior He also indicates that the honor due mother and brothers is an honor to be extended equally to
everyone." (17-18) The text reads as follows: "Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren
stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it." Jesus says nothing about honor in this text and implies
nothing about honor. He is simply saying that only those who are obedient to God have intimate relationship with Him. I agree that obedient women are as much a part of God's family as obedient men, but this only "demolishes the
notion of gender-restricted roles" if the existence of such roles implies that subordinate people cannot be full-fledged members of God's family. This is, again, evidence of the author's assumption of the relationship of role and
worth, but the text itself implies no such thing. Luke 10:38-42 The author claims that Jesus reflects His rejection of "woman's role" when He encourages Mary to continue to focus on His teaching rather
than being "cumbered about much serving," like her sister. 38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain The author also makes much of the fact that Jesus actually taught Mary, as further indication that He hated gender-based role distinctions. She sites two scholars to support her conclusions, agreeing that Jesus' love
for women and His willingness to teach them violates the concept that women should fulfill any subordinate role. However, women attended synagogues, were commonly spoken to in public and were commonly taught by all
religious rulers of that day. Consider Luke 13:10-17: 10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. In this account we find Jesus teaching in mixed company, calling a woman to the front of the meeting and speaking to her, placing His hands on her, healing her, and calling her a "daughter of Abraham." The woman also
spoke openly in this public meeting and glorified God. This was evidently within common cultural norms, as there is no evidence that the religious rulers or the common people ever found fault with any of this behavior. In
fact, all the people... not just the women... rejoiced in His ways. In truth, we have no indication in the Bible itself that women were not valued as human beings, treated with respect and dignity, and taught the
truth right along side men in Jewish culture. When studying the Scripture, we do find much evidence that they were in fact deeply valued and treated as equal in worth to men. One cannot come to the conclusions that the author has
proposed about the common disregard for women from a study of the Word itself, and it is important to note that she does not ever reference the Scripture when positioning this context for us. Though it is evident
that women were valued as equals to men in ancient Jewish culture, they did not ever occupy positions of leadership either in Jewish culture or in Jesus's ministry: none of the twelve disciples were women. If Jesus really hated
gender-based distinctives, we may be sure that He would have expressed it in the selection of the twelve. Jesus Rejects the Cultural Perception of Womanhood Luke 11:27-8. This is an account of a woman
who, in the midst of the public teaching of Jesus, proclaimed that Mary was blessed to be the mother of Jesus. "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto
him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." The author quotes Jesus contradicting the
proclamation rather than agreeing with it: "He says, 'Nay, rather...' " She depends upon this supposed contradiction in order to make her point, but we do not actually see a contradiction when we look at the text itself. The reason
for this is that the Greek word behind the translation, menounge, implies an intensity of comparison ("indeed") and may be translated either way depending on the context. The author apparently prefers a
contradiction since that suits her purpose, but this simply denies the fact that Mary was indeed blessed to be the mother of Christ: "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with
thee: blessed art thou among women." (Luke 1:28) The author's translation of the text violates this concept and is therefore incorrect. The entire context, taken fairly, does not diminish the beautiful quality of
women who are mothers and nuturers by God's design. Jesus is simply saying that even the privilege of being chosen as His own earthly mother does not compare to that of being chosen to walk in spiritual revelation and obedience.
Both are conditions of blessing, but the eternal is infinitely better. The Risen Christ Commissions the First Apostle John 20:10-18, Matt 28:1-10 Both texts concern the appearance of Jesus to Mary
Magdalene, who was evidently the first person to view and converse with the risen Christ. The author finds this "first" to be extremely significant, in light of the very dark portrait she has managed to paint of Jewish
culture at the time. In light of this dark backdrop, the author wishes to show that Jesus was clearly making a loud statement concerning the role of women in the church and was instigating a great change in the way women were to be
viewed and treated. However, if one discards the author's extra-biblical references that suggest women were commonly treated as sub-human throughout Jewish culture, this event is not quite so significant. It is very
difficult to read passages such as Proverbs 31, which according to long-standing Jewish tradition is spoken by a husband over his wife every sabbath eve, and retain a notion that there was simply a common disdain for women that
permeated all of ancient Jewish culture. In fact, for example, one might note the ministry of Anna the prophetess recorded in Luke 2: 36
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the The testimony of women has always been a vital part of the life of the spiritual community, and the tesimony of Anna was no exception at the time of Christ's birth. As God encouraged a woman to proclaim the news of
His resurrection to the apostles, so He also encouraged a woman to announce His birth throughout the spiritual community of Jerusalem... including all its godly leadership. This dear Anna was evidently well known
and well respected by all of spiritual insight in her community, and there is no indication that her widespread public testimony violated cultural norms or that it was discounted because she was a woman. God does encourage all
human beings to testify of their experience in heavenly things without regard to gender, race or age and the godly have never been troubled by it, but this does not imply an anihilation of gender-based roles.
Christ's instruction to Mary to give public testimony of His resurrection to the eleven disciples does imply that it is appropriate for women to offer testimonials in both public and private settings. It implies further that
significant spiritual revelation is given to women that is needed by the church and that significant benefit is to be derived from receiving this revelation. These implications are in full keeping with Woman's role
as a helper and are not inconsistent with her choosing to serve Man in a subordinate position: the offering of testimony and insight is quite different than providing leadership, as can be seen in any subordinate relationship in
business, military, education or government. God has provided Woman for Man for the purpose of assisting ("I will make him an help..." Gen 2:18) him, and this naturally includes being a recipient of insights and personal
experience that she should share with him for his edification. Again, there is nothing about this that necessarily implies that women are to function in every societal role in the same way that men do. In
considering the author's use of the word "apostle," one is lead to believe that Mary Magdalene was given profound authority in the early church and that she functioned as a leader in the early Christian community. The fact is, that
in all of the narrative and activity recorded in the rest of the New Testament, this dear sister is never mentioned again. The author concludes the second chapter stating, "Jesus was a friend of women. He vigorously
promoted the dignity and equality of women in terms of both value and function." (20) I fully agree with this conclusion except for the last two words... which is nothing more than her constant appeal to her hidden assumption
that subordination implies inferiority. The author has given absolutely no evidence to support this aspect of her conclusion, which is her entire thesis, but continually leverages her blending of equality of role and individual
worth to encourage her reader in a false way. As error... it will lead to bondage and corruption, not to freedom and health. Summary In summary, the evidence for Biblical Egalitarianism given in this second chapter is: Chapter 3: Evidences of Equality in Early Christianity The author continues on through the book of Acts and into the epistles to build her case of Biblical Egalitarianism. She claims that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on women as well as
men implied that God was empowering all of them to the same task, that of prophesy and public ministry, without regard to gender. However, the empowerment of the Spirit is actually for the unique ministry that God
gifts each individual saint to pursue, and He has not called all saints to be pastors and teachers in the church. He has set various giftings and offices within the church, and apparently has chosen to put men into the positions of
leadership. This is true of the twelve apostles, and it is also true of the first seven deacons, or official "servants" of the church in Acts 5. When decisions needed to be made, when crowds were to be addressed, when church policy
was formed... every single case recorded in the book of Acts was managed entirely by the men of the early church and not the women. The author conveniently overlooks this fact and instead pulls bits and pieces of the narrative to
suit her purpose. The author's makes mention of the fact that women were present in the upper room prior to Pentecost and assumes that they were involved in decision making. She offers no support for her claim, but
merely assumes it, ignoring the fact that it was a man, Peter, who formally lead the entire group into the selection of a replacement for Judas, that two men were positioned by the assembly for God to choose for the task, and that
that only men were considered as possible candidates. (Acts 1:41) It was Peter that God had assigned the task of feeding His sheep (John 21:17), and his rise to a position of influence among the twelve even at this early stage
appears natural. The author completely ignores the entire dynamic and waves her hand at it, presuming there was no gender-based distinction at all. The author follows this with her first significant reference in the
book of Acts in chapter 5, making note of God's dealing with Annanias and Saphira, stating that "the Holy Spirit introduced another important precedant. He held women directly, personally and equally responsible with men to God.
Numbers 30 had given fathers and husbands control over women, but God clearly set a new standard -- and egalitarian standard when He dealt with Anannias and Saphira." The author confuses the mercy God offered women through their
husbands deliving them from foolish vows, with the idea that women were not held responsible for their general beliefs and actions. God has never been lenient with lies and hypocrisy. The fact that God held a woman responsible for
partnering with her husband in open sin is not a new standard at all. To be continued... last update 12/7/13 |
||||