I have seen and/or experienced this in churches. My question is: Has anyone figured out how to address people who have "colonize and coercion" approach to scripture so that it doesn't escalate it? I posted on Beth Moore Twitter when it got abusive that the ones verbally, emotional and spiritually abusing her were not qualified for ministry. I never got any pushback, but don't know if it worked or not?
The even deeper irony is that in the first centuries of the church, according to funerary inscriptions, there might even have been -more- women leaders in the church than men (according to “Cristina and Her Sisters”). The push to rid church leadership of women took on traction when Christianity was mainstreamed in the fourth century CE, and men of higher status became interested. It was not culturally supportable in the GrecoRoman world for higher status men to be led by women, regardless of their status.
So, in effect, the culture of that day began a relentless program of eroding and undoing the gospel of grace and liberty, the powerful movement of the Holy Spirit begun in Acts 2, and the tenor of Jesus’ ministry, with women disciples he affirmed and women financial backers. Now, today, Complementarians would like to say theirs is the “traditional” reading of scripture, theirs is the very root and foundation of church leadership. Instead, as you eloquently point out, Complementarianism is absolutely colonization and coercion, and I would add, springing from the culture and in the tradition of the GrecoRoman world.
This breaks my heart. I was a proud member of 2 SBC churches for over 20 years. The foundation of my love for Jesus begin in a SBC church. I began to love the Bible in a SBC church. I felt God’s “call” on my life was to be a pastor in a SBC church. I preached for the first time when I was 18 at a SBC church. I saw someone quit their job to become a full time missionary at a SBC church. Maybe it was because I was a male, but in the SBC churches I attended it was never mentioned that women where inferior to men…though it was un verbally proclaimed every time a man, and only men, would preach.
What I don’t understand is how ol’ Al can keep digging his heals into a sexist and painful patriarchal “biblical view. Is it my way or the highway or does he truly think his interpretation is “inerrant?”
I have noticed several egalitarians endorsing and using the CSB. I didn't want anything to do with it because of its affiliation with Lifeway. And I couldn't figure out why the NIV 2011 was demonized, but the CSB is embraced. Did we really need another Bible that was doing what the NIV 2011 is already doing? I have read some pretty exaggerated statements of thankfulness that the CSB includes women. Why didn't these same people support the NIV 2011? I'm wondering if your thoughts about the CSB are the same since its 2020 update. I'm teetering and still mostly use the NIV 2011 and the NRSV. I would love to see the SBC cash cow and ESV replacement (https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=0423) not garner so much attention by those who think it's somehow better than the NIV 2011 and are recommending it.
I should admit my position on this has changed slowly over the past few years. (It probably helped God placed me in a church with a female rector). I assure you it is not because of some ill-will I had towards women that I held a complementarian view. I was attempting to be faithful to the Scriptures as I was taught and read. For those who are not scholars, and are not Greek NT literate, how is one supposed to read the NT without being biased? Dr. Hübner mentions Bibles that are biased in translation and layout, i.e. ESV. Aside from learning Greek myself, which translation should I switch my regular study to?
The trouble is, the ESV sometimes gets it right where the NIV gets it wrong. For example, see 1 Corinthians 14:37. The NIV has, “if anyone’s thinks THEY are a prophet ...” while the ESV has, “if anyone thinks HE is a prophet ...” As a result, the NIV makes it seem as if Paul is continuing to rebuke the women in 36-38, which closes off the reader to the possible interpretation that 34-35 is Paul’s summarization of a mistaken Corinthian idea (see Lucy Peppiatt’s book, Women and Worship). I’m writing a book defending egalitarianism, written for a lay audience, entitled Untie the Cords of Silence (to be published by Wipf and Stock), and was surprised that a couple of times I’ve been obliged to quote from the ESV instead of the NIV! My recommendation is to use a few different English translations in your Bible study.
I have seen and/or experienced this in churches. My question is: Has anyone figured out how to address people who have "colonize and coercion" approach to scripture so that it doesn't escalate it? I posted on Beth Moore Twitter when it got abusive that the ones verbally, emotional and spiritually abusing her were not qualified for ministry. I never got any pushback, but don't know if it worked or not?
I wish there were a "trick" that worked. Instead, we simply keep sketching an alternative view and pray it will become fertile. Keep it up.
Thank you for this, Scot, and for your steadfast work in this arena!
One critique: I think you mean predecessor rather than successor in that early paragraph about the man Al Mohler quoted.
Thanks Pam.
The even deeper irony is that in the first centuries of the church, according to funerary inscriptions, there might even have been -more- women leaders in the church than men (according to “Cristina and Her Sisters”). The push to rid church leadership of women took on traction when Christianity was mainstreamed in the fourth century CE, and men of higher status became interested. It was not culturally supportable in the GrecoRoman world for higher status men to be led by women, regardless of their status.
So, in effect, the culture of that day began a relentless program of eroding and undoing the gospel of grace and liberty, the powerful movement of the Holy Spirit begun in Acts 2, and the tenor of Jesus’ ministry, with women disciples he affirmed and women financial backers. Now, today, Complementarians would like to say theirs is the “traditional” reading of scripture, theirs is the very root and foundation of church leadership. Instead, as you eloquently point out, Complementarianism is absolutely colonization and coercion, and I would add, springing from the culture and in the tradition of the GrecoRoman world.
This is a great summary of concerns by Jamin. A keeper!
This breaks my heart. I was a proud member of 2 SBC churches for over 20 years. The foundation of my love for Jesus begin in a SBC church. I began to love the Bible in a SBC church. I felt God’s “call” on my life was to be a pastor in a SBC church. I preached for the first time when I was 18 at a SBC church. I saw someone quit their job to become a full time missionary at a SBC church. Maybe it was because I was a male, but in the SBC churches I attended it was never mentioned that women where inferior to men…though it was un verbally proclaimed every time a man, and only men, would preach.
What I don’t understand is how ol’ Al can keep digging his heals into a sexist and painful patriarchal “biblical view. Is it my way or the highway or does he truly think his interpretation is “inerrant?”
I have noticed several egalitarians endorsing and using the CSB. I didn't want anything to do with it because of its affiliation with Lifeway. And I couldn't figure out why the NIV 2011 was demonized, but the CSB is embraced. Did we really need another Bible that was doing what the NIV 2011 is already doing? I have read some pretty exaggerated statements of thankfulness that the CSB includes women. Why didn't these same people support the NIV 2011? I'm wondering if your thoughts about the CSB are the same since its 2020 update. I'm teetering and still mostly use the NIV 2011 and the NRSV. I would love to see the SBC cash cow and ESV replacement (https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=0423) not garner so much attention by those who think it's somehow better than the NIV 2011 and are recommending it.
This article was necessarily thorough. Thank you.
I should admit my position on this has changed slowly over the past few years. (It probably helped God placed me in a church with a female rector). I assure you it is not because of some ill-will I had towards women that I held a complementarian view. I was attempting to be faithful to the Scriptures as I was taught and read. For those who are not scholars, and are not Greek NT literate, how is one supposed to read the NT without being biased? Dr. Hübner mentions Bibles that are biased in translation and layout, i.e. ESV. Aside from learning Greek myself, which translation should I switch my regular study to?
CEB and NRSV is all that I ever use anymore.
The trouble is, the ESV sometimes gets it right where the NIV gets it wrong. For example, see 1 Corinthians 14:37. The NIV has, “if anyone’s thinks THEY are a prophet ...” while the ESV has, “if anyone thinks HE is a prophet ...” As a result, the NIV makes it seem as if Paul is continuing to rebuke the women in 36-38, which closes off the reader to the possible interpretation that 34-35 is Paul’s summarization of a mistaken Corinthian idea (see Lucy Peppiatt’s book, Women and Worship). I’m writing a book defending egalitarianism, written for a lay audience, entitled Untie the Cords of Silence (to be published by Wipf and Stock), and was surprised that a couple of times I’ve been obliged to quote from the ESV instead of the NIV! My recommendation is to use a few different English translations in your Bible study.
The NIV post 2011 publication does really well at being gender accurate.
NRSV and CEB and NIV
CEB, NRSV