Culture Shock, continued

A while ago a brother in our church suggested that "Women in Office" was a real "hobby horse" for me. He came to this conclusion after I had published a few articles on our church's Facebook page.
I had done so in response to two developments. First, the GKv churches were meeting at their regular synod, and this time there seemed to be an urgent push in the church community to 'legalize women in office'. Reading the Nederlands Daglad and listening to people around me I was convinced that this decision would indeed be made. Second, while our pastor can be characterised as "evangelical reformed" and loves to learn from John Piper and Timothy Keller, yet het held a 'teaching sermon' in which he explained the report on "Serving Together as Man and Woman" (written by a study group to advise the Synod on this issue) without any pastoral warning or guidance. Yet, I discovered -to my surprise and horror- that this report follows the same rationale as Bill Webb does in his progressive redemptive hermeneutic. (see: post Shelob's Web: August, 2014)

Meanwhile, fairly recently I had learned that at 'my seminary' and in the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist churches the teachings of Bill Webb have been rejected. Wayne Grudem, for instance, has written a fairly thorough critique of Webb's "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals".
On the other hand, however, in the churches where I grew up in Holland, many or most now embrace the kind of hermeneutics of Bill Webb proposes. Ironically, they used to consider themselves 'the true church' with 'the pure doctrine', while they considered Baptist churches unworthy of the label "Church of Christ". Yet, at this time it seems to me that Baptist leaders like D.A. Carson and John Piper are now closer to the Truth than most Reformed churches and their leaders, at least here in The Netherlands.

So, what is my position on "women in office' and how and why is it different from others in 'our churches' here?
Since most people tend to think that there are only two answers possible, they will automatically try to peg me in either hole. So, before I answer the question, I usually describe the other options before us.  Please note that many nuances exist and variations exist within each of these viewpoints.

1 the traditional position
In several passages, Paul clearly argues that women must be silent in the meetings. Even if we cannot understand his rationale or have a tendency to object from our cultural perspective, we are called to obey the Word of God and the apostolic teaching.
Sure, women were prophesying in the early church, but we don't have this kind of prophesying anymore. Perhaps women were allowed to be deacons, but many older people would object, to this and we are to keep the peace. Besides, this could lead us onto a slippery slope, whereby opening up one office might soon lead to opening up all offices. Better safe than sorry.

My response: Over against the "women must be silent" in the meetings we can also find passages where women were encouraged to speak in the meetings, and they were applauded for their leadership functions. If we bar women from the office of deacon without clear instructions from Scripture to do so, then we are not living by God's Word but by tradition and culture. We do not respect our women and the gifts God gives in and through them. Such practices do not build up but weaken the church.

2 the egalitarian position
A century ago the women in our culture were not treated with the same respect as men. In civil elections, for instance, women were not allowed to participate. Especially after WWII feminism fought for liberty and equality, and slowly but surely many situations of systemic injustice were removed.
Although the Church of Christ ought to defend justice in the public realm, in reality they often lag behind the surrounding culture. Today, most churches are ashamed of their chauvinistic past and seek to undo the mistakes of the past.
If women finally get their fair place and position in society, why should we not do the right thing and do the same in the churches? If we read the Bible from this perspective, it becomes clear that there is a movement after the Fall from inequality and injustice to justice and equality. We are called to continue in faithfulness to this storyline and do the right thing for our women.
If there are a few passages where Paul would call women to be silent, we must look for good reasons for him to do so. In Corinth, for instance, there were special problems with domineering women. Therefore, Paul's instruction there was specifically directed to that situation. Besides, Paul was careful in his day and age not to run ahead and enforce changes the congregations were not ready for.

My response: In the writing of most proponents it is clear that they are searching for scriptural approval, or at least leaway, for what they -informed by the surrounding secular culture- deem to be the right tyhing for God's Word to say. Just like the traditionalists, ultimately they let culture and tradition determine what is right of wrong for them to do. The Bible passages that support their conclusions are then highlighted, the others, apparently opposite, are then relativized. Now Synod has decided all offices should be open, many people again argue that we ought to maintain the (new) status quo in order to maintain the peace.

3 the relativistic position
Some people cannot understand me. In China we could worship together with Catholis, Pentecostals, and Baptists. Now we are back in Holland, we make issue about "such trivial matters" as women in office. Many preople argue that, really, we should have no separate denominations: Do not all Christians share in the same faith and baptism? Are all these schisms not an abomiation for the Truth? Look, even in our churches there are many people sincerely trying to understand God's Word and to live by it. And they come to all kinds of interpretations and applications. So, God's Word is not clear at all. We must not be so proud as in the past, and we must stop fighting for our viewpoint as if that were the only valid one. Let's live in harmonious love together and stop fighting!

My response: We must indeed watch out not to judge others or other churches too easily as 'unbeliever' or 'false church'. We must be prepared to listen before we speak, to evaluate our views in the light of Scripture, also from other perspectives. We must always try to maintain a balance between apparently contradicting passages in Scripture. Yet, it seems that many people and leaders here have moved into a view of relativism. Although in Paul's letters (for instance to Timothy) and Jesus' letters (to 'the seven churches') warn us all the time against false doctrines, this concern seems of little importance for the modern church today. Satan will make use of his opportunities that readily come available today!

4 the complementarian position
Most orthodox scholars today agree that in the first letter to Corinth (chapter 14) Paul tells women (not just certain women!) to be silent when it comes to evaluate what has been said to the (male or female) speakers in the church meetings. In his letter to Timothy Paul warns that women are not to speak authoritatively. To summarize: the final authority and responsibility for the teaching must be with the elders or bishops, who ought to be ordained men. We must ensure that all other roles in the church are readily available to women as to men.
In our modern culture people cannot understand that men and women are equally valuable before God while at the same time they have different roles to play. They also think it sounds terrible that a woman are called to follow, serve, and obey her husband. Yet, they fail to see that the husband is called to love his wife sacrificially, like Christ loved his church when he gave up his life for her! if a godly man will sacrifice everything for his wife, he cannot and will not enforce his will on her against her will. Yet, if she experiences his real, self-sacrificing love in this way, she will love to serve him and to follow him! This must not surprise us: Paul and James call thenselves slaves of Jesus, not because their Lord is a cruel slavedriver, but because they have understood and appreciated his amazing grace. They trust him so much, that -in loving thankfulness- they voluntarily become his slaves!

This view, in my opinion, is the only one that seeks to do justice to passages on both sides of the spectrum: those passages that seem to say: 'Women may speak and lead in public, just like men.' and others that seem to say: 'Women must be silent, while men may speak.' Also, it avoids the problems of traditionalism and egalitarianism that drives people to force their personal preferences on their exegesis and/or hermeneutics. In this way, it also avoids ineffectivity in missions, as Newbigin and Keller would say, "Traditional churches do not listen to, dialog with, or understand those outside the faith. Yet, mainstream churches, in their efforts to accomdate secular culture, have lost the unique message of the Gospel, which is both inviting and confronting."

Of course my description of the views had to be short. The complementarian view has been promoted by D.A. Carson, Tim and Kathy Keller, and John Piper. These are the leaders of The Gospel Coalition. To gain a better understanding, and I hope appreciation of this view, I encourage you to read some of these publications:

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womenhood

What's the Difference?

50 Questions and Answers

Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles

The Gospel Coalition on Complentarity: search their website, using as search term: complementarity