Why The Tools of Interpretation Matter...
and how two sides are using the same tools for different ends.
When I set out to better understand the debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism, I learned pretty quickly that I was carrying some preconceived notions or biases with me to the debate. Quickly, I learned how deeply complex the topic truly is. As much as we want to try and claim this is a clear, black-and-white topic, I think we are doing a disservice to all the study that has happened over the centuries. Things are not as clear as we may want them to be! However, I still did come to a final conclusion that the egalitarian position is the stronger interpretive position between the two. But I am getting ahead of myself.
One author, Dr. Nijay Gupta, writes,
So many people over the years had said to me: just read your Bible and the answer is clear. By this, they mean that there are many “clear” passages that forbid women from being pastors or preachers. But here is the problem: “translators are liars” (so the famous proverb goes). That is not a cop-out. Bible translators have to simplify texts to communicate clearly, but all along the way they make lots of little choices, and they have to ‘take sides’ on issues even if the answer isn’t fully clear…it is misleading to say: The answer is clear in MY Bible. That usually means: The answer is clear in MY FAVORITE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.”1
As I mentioned in a previous post, there is far more commonality between the two positions than many think. The principles of scriptural interpretation are one example of common ground. Both positions hold to the staples of interpretation, and both hold a high view of scripture as God’s Word to humanity.
Complementarian Kathy Keller, in Jesus, Justice and Gender Roles, lays the groundwork succinctly by writing,
“First, Scripture does not contradict scripture…The corollary of this could be stated thus: What is clear in the Bible interprets what is cloudy…Second, every text must be understood in its context-historical, cultural, and social.”2
She captures the principles of understanding and interpreting scripture well. Scripture interprets scripture. Clear texts help us understand cloudy texts. Context is king. Historical, cultural, and social contexts are deeply important.
As I studied, I began to realize that these principles are not only maintained by the complementarian position. All the egalitarian scholars I read believe the same principles.
Dr. Jamin Hubner illustrates this in his 2013 dissertation, A New Case for Female Elders: An Analytical Reformed-Evangelical Approach. He writes how he agrees with these principles and expounds it by writing,
“Given the high view of Scripture ascribed to Evangelicals, both sides of the debate on women in ministry also have much in common regarding hermeneutics. Both can be found affirming (1) the need for careful exegesis (e.g. Johnston 1986; Haddah 2008: 15-19; Schreiner 2005a; Payne 2009), which rejects the imposition of artificial categories on the text, attempts to respect and understand the authorial intent, and involved cultural studies, contextual studies, linguistic studies, etc.; (2) the need to interpret more difficult and disputed passages in light of the less difficult and less disputed passages (e.g., Schreiner 2005b:269; Johnston 1989:31-32; Nicole 1986:48); (3) the affirmation of ruling out erroneous interpretations even though ‘one cannot interpret comprehensively or infallibly’ (Blomberg 2009:xiv), thus rejecting Post-Modern ‘deconstructionism’ (morphew 2009:17-18; Vanhoozer 2009; Cf. Storey 2001:58ff.; McCreight 2000:36-54); and (4) the need to cogently harmonize the theology of biblical authors, of the NT, and of the entire Scriptures (e.g., Haddad 2008:16; Bilezikian 2006:13-15; Belleville 2005b:21-22; Köstenberger and Patterson 2001), though the extent of harmonization is disptuable, depending on views of Scripture and what one considers ‘artificial’ harmonization within systematic theology.”
In What the Bible Actually Teaches on Women, Dr. Kevin Giles summarizes similarly, writing,
“Evangelical egalitarians do not deny the authority of Scripture, they affirm it. Evangelical egalitarians do not deny male-female differentiation, they affirm it. Evangelical egalitarians do not come to the Scriptures with secular feminist presuppositions that rule their interpertive work; they seek first of all to find the historical meaning of Scripture.”
This is hugely significant, in my opinion. I had been trained with a subtle disdain or distrust of egalitarian scholarship.3 In fact, in his extensive video series on the topic, Mike Winger leads off with this assumption, instilling distrust in his viewers on the egalitarian position! His first video in the series is about how “we bypass the Bible.” He quotes egalitarian authors to show how they, in turn, have bypassed the Bible to get to their desired end or agenda.4 Winger goes on to claim an author bypasses the Bible because their introductions state their desired end, and then what follows is them working toward that end. That is a very narrow understanding of publishing and the purpose of a preface & introduction.
My point is this: in all that I have read to date (over 10,000 pages now), I have not read a single author who has disagreed with these hermeneutical principles. This doesn’t mean they are not out there. However, I believe this illustrates that many scholars wholeheartedly “accept and embrace the Bible as the Word of God, inspired, and without error,” and still do not hold the traditional hierarchical-complementarian5 position.
Piper and Grudem6 acknowledge this as well in the preface of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Writing about egalitarian, evangelical scholars, they state,
“…these authors differ from secular feminists because they do not reject the Bible’s authority or truthfulness, but rather give new interpretations7 of the Bible to support their claims…by personal commitment to Jesus Christ and by profession of belief in the total truthfulness of Scripture they still identify themselves very clearly with evangelicalism…we [both complementarians and egalitarians] share a common passion…to be obedient to Biblical truth…we stand together on the authority of God’s Word, the Bible.”
It is out of this high view of Scripture that both sides long to take these topics seriously and so are guided by the same hermeneutical principles.
Returning to Kathy Keller, she unknowingly summarizes for both sides in writing,
For me, these two principles, [1. Scripture interprets scripture, specifically clear interprets cloudy and 2. Every text in context-historically, culturally, and socially] have made all the difference, particularly in the area of gender, roles, ministry, and the collision between them.”
What fascinates me is how these authors have come to two different practical conclusions regarding marriage and church. I believe this is because the disagreement comes down to which passages are cloudy and which are clear. It comes down to what passages will be the lens to help us see more clearly. It comes down to what passages will be the clearer key to help us unlock the cloudier text.
Let me give two examples to illustrate my point. First, take infant baptism versus believer/adult baptism. From a reformed perspective, we understand infant baptism to be a covenantal expansion of circumcision. This is taking the whole of scripture to help us understand some passages that seem to link baptism to repentance and to the individual profession. Those covenantal passages are lenses to help us see passages like, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
As a second example, let’s look at the concepts of election or predestination. In the early 2000s, I received my undergraduate degree at North Central University in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A Pentecostal school with a view of salvation that was a choice by an individual, or free-will. In a class on the book of Acts, I recall my professor acknowledging that Acts 13:488 seems to speak directly about predestination. From there, he moved on, not discussing it anymore. Now, I know there are more texts that others argue regarding salvation being a person’s free will choice, from “whosoever…” passages like John 3:16, Romans 10:13, Acts 10:43, to 2 Peter 3:9.9
Applying these hermeneutical principles as stated above, these scriptures do not contradict other passages like the ones found in John 6 or Romans 9-11. So, what do we do? We have to understand some passages in the light of other passages. We have to understand some passages through the lenses of other passages.
This hermeneutical approach is the challenge present in the current topic. It is not, as some authors would claim, a matter of simple trust in what the Bible says or does not say. It is far more complex than some of the fear-mongering tactics I have read on both sides of the debate. What seems to be consistent across the board is the importance of context, context, context. To put it another way, a text without context is a proof-text.
This happens when we pull a text out of its context to influence our interpretation of another passage. Here, I am talking about the topics of exegesis and eisegesis.10 In short, exegesis is "reading out of" the text, while eisegesis is "reading into" the text.
Sadly, I think the biggest scripture in this whole debate that gets proof-texted is 1 Timothy 2:12-13. In an interview with Preston Sprinkle, author and host of the podcast Theology in the Raw, Bill Mounce, a world-renowned Greek scholar, discussed 1 Timothy 2:13. He stated, “If verse thirteen were not there, I would be an egalitarian. I mean, I would have other issues putting other things into context. But for me, this verse is the determining verse.”
I would argue this is putting undue weight on one single verse. It is taking the passage as a whole out of the equation. And I have read enough now to see that often, this verse is then used to go back to Genesis 2 and other passages around this topic to interpret those verses through the lens of 1 Timothy 2:13.
In later posts, I will unpack specifically the two positions taken on Genesis 2 and 1 Timothy 2. My current point is simply centered around the commonality of the interpretative practices of both positions. The debate, though, comes into which verses are the primary interpretive guides and which are the secondary to be understood through the primary lenses.
My hope in all of this is to help make understandable the debate as a whole, the similarities, the differences, and why I believe there should be room within many churches to hold more loosely the beliefs on the topics of marriage and leadership in regards to men and women.
And I hope this lays the groundwork for those in the complementarian position to wrestle with their own biases or claims of holding the more faithful position to scripture. I no longer see it that way. I now realize this whole debate is not a matter of trust in God’s word, but rather, a matter of interpretation.
Gupta, Nijay. Why I Believe in Women in Ministry static.squarespace.com The key is acknowledging that our English translation is from different languages. And while we have a lot of certainty with what we have, there are still aspects that are “lost in translation,” as the saying goes. Dr. Gupta is referring to the complexity of the debated texts. One of the most complex texts, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, is often the key text stated as being “so clear.” In a future post, I will share the rarity of the words used in just those few verses.
Kathy Keller, the wife of the late Tim Keller, Justice, Jesus, and Gender Roles. This pamphlet is part of a larger 3-part series titled Fresh Perspectives on Women in Ministry. Each other holds a different position. Interestingly, some have pointed out the ironic nature of a woman conveying scriptural teaching to those who hold that women should not teach/preach the scriptures to men. Piper has tried to nuance the answer to the degree that reading from a woman author does not carry the same authority as hearing from a woman in the pulpit. Unfortunately, there is no scriptural warrant for such a nuance. To me, it speaks to the complexity of the topic and the cognitive dissonance that can be at play in these discussions.
I do not explicitly believe this to be the case. I think it had happened over the years of reading only one side who often would tell you what the other side believes. I do believe, though, that there are authors who actively attempt to discredit the other position. I hope my aim is not with similar motives. In all of this, my aim is to share that there is solid biblical, historical, and cultural evidence to hold the egalitarian position. I do NOT believe complementarian scholars are trying to hide anything, have ill-will, or any such things. I am trying to lay out what it was in my study that caused me to change my position. Yes, to what I believe is a more solid position, but as stated elsewhere, not with 100% certainty.
If you have been listening through his massive video series, I highly recommend reading a collection of responses by Terran Williams and Andrew Bartlett found at TerranWilliams.com. These two authors have taken immense time to graciously respond to Winger’s videos. The unfortunate aspect is that rather than watching/listening, you have to read almost 400 pages worth of review and response. Both have written books on the topic that I highly recommend. How God Sees Women and Men and Women in Christ. I hope to share more of their works and my conversations with them.
See my previous post, What’s in a name? for why I choose to use the term “hierarchical-complementarian” to describe the commonly called “complementarian” position.
John Piper and Wayne Grudem are probably the most vocal advocates of the complementarian position. They claim to have coined the term and often use fear-mongering tactics when speaking about the other position.
It is worth noting that Piper and Grudem also give new interpretations regarding these topics. As I shared in parts, and will share more in depth in future posts, the why behind the what has changed in the last century or so. This means NEW interpretations have to be given for why people hold to male-only leadership.
Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed".
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life"; Romans 10:13, "For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"; Acts 10:43, “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”; 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
"Exegesis" means to carefully interpret a text by drawing out the intended meaning from the author's original context, while "eisegesis" refers to reading your own ideas and biases into a text, essentially forcing the text to mean what you want it to say, rather than interpreting it based on its original meaning. I have seen BOTH sides accuse the other of “reading into” the text. Sadly, this does a disservice to the whole thing because it shuts down any further conversation. It is the equivalent of an ad hominem attack. A logical fallacy that diverts from the issue and instead attacks the practices of the person.