• The Congregation as a Learning Community with Mark Lau Branson. Ths class fulfills the “Christian Formation and Discipleship” requirement for the M.Div. From what I understand, Branson has good Anabaptist leanings!
• Grief, Loss, Death and Dying with David Augsburger. This one hits the “Pastoral Counseling” requirement. Forget Anabaptist “leanings,” Augsburger is a great Anabaptist leader and scholar. You may have seen his recent book, Dissident Discipleship. I think half my church has read it.
• Making Doctrine Live with Marguerite Shuster. This class is one of the three classes needed to fulfill the “Preaching and Communication” requirement: one class generally on Homiletics, then two practicums. This would be my first practicum. Actually, I tried to stay with my current professor for Homiletics, Doug Nason, but both of his practicums were taken. I’m waitlisted for those, so I might switch over if space opens up. All the practicum listings have only 8 or 9 spots. We all preach (or speak) twice in the quarter and give comments to the other preachers/speakers.

And for the final elective of my Fuller career:

• Advanced Hebrew Grammar with Jeremy Smoak, who is, according to the website, a post-doctoral fellow at UCLA’s NELC department.

So it should be an interesting quarter. In the summer quarter, I hope to take my final preaching practicum in communication, fulfill two church history courses (with “Medieval and Reformation History” and “Post-Reformation and Modern Theology”–the latter taught by Richard Muller), and take “Intro to Islam” as an IDL. Then, I’m all done with this seminary thing! It’s hard to believe.

One of the most powerful, axiom-like single verses in the New Testament, Gal 3:28 certainly commands our attention for the biblical conversation:

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

In Galatians, Paul is of course most interested in the “Jew or Greek” pair from the statement, though the “slave or free” theme receives some attention as well. Paul asserts that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision count for anything” in Christ Jesus, but rather what matters is “faith working through love” (5:6) and “a new creation” (6:15). “You are no longer slaves,” he writes, “but a child” and an “heir, through God” (4:7). Again, “we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman” (4:31). This letter is about being truly free and not weighed down by “the curse of the law” (3:13).

But what of “male and female” (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ)? Neither word occurs at any other point in the epistle. We can certainly see how there could be an issue of “freedom” in the case of men and women, but without any other mention of male-female relations, it seems oddly out of place. Paul is clearly not making a detailed argument here specifically for the equality of men and women, but a powerful statement nonetheless. There are only two other uses of this phrase in the NT (Matt 19:4; Mk 10:6), both direct references to the creation account. In the Greek version of the book of Genesis (from the Septuagint, also known as LXX), most significantly in the creation account, the same pair occurs 10 times (its only use in the LXX). God creates humanity in the image of God, “male and female” (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ) God creates them (1:27; cf. 5:2). That Paul explicitly uses “and” (καὶ) for this pair in Gal 3:28, diverging from his use of “or” (οὐδὲ) in the other two, suggests that he is calling the reader’s memory to the creation account of Genesis.

But why? Clearly Paul does not desire to cancel out the “image of God” from humanity. What else could explain his use here? Some complementarians argue that since Paul is here referring to a creation ordinance, it does not have the same implications as the first two pairs. The first two relate to racial, ethnic, and social divisions that were not a part of God’s good creation and therefore can be challenged in the present social reality. “Male and female,” on the other hand, according to the traditionalists, only refers to a removal of distinction between the two in the realm of salvation. Of course, there is no distinction between men and women in salvation, they say, but this does not have social implications (cf. Scholer, 125). This argument stems from the traditionalist reading of Genesis 1-2 in which social distinctions between men and women are inherent in God’s creation itself (i.e., they are God’s intention).

Another traditionalist emphasis on this verse is highlighting its lack of functional meaning. There is no reference to any specific office of ministry in the context of Galatians. Furthermore, the traditionalists tend to count texts irrelevant to this discussion when they do not explicitly affirm a woman’s role in the office of either ἐπίσκοπος (overseer/bishop) or πρεσβύτερος (presbyter/elder). In this way, when the egalitarians point to principles found within texts such as Gal 3:28, the complementarians dismiss them from the “women in ministry” discussion since they do not have specific mention of predetermined ministerial positions (cf. Scholer, 124-5).

The problem with this last argument, however, is that the leadership offices of the church were far different in New Testament times than they are today. When we narrow our definitions by titles, we risk anachronistically reading our present day understandings of those titles into the biblical text. Instead, we should look to the themes and principles found in these biblical passages, while not neglecting their context, and apply them to our own contemporary situation.

The first argument (the appeal to creation-mandated social distinctions) must be addressed with an assessment of the opening chapters of Genesis themselves. That I will leave to my next post in this series.

Write a position paper (15-20 pages, including notes) on the role and status of Women in the New Testament and in the church today. It is assumed that this paper is based on class lectures and discussions, the New Testament (and Old Testament as appropriate), all required texts (especially those of Belleville, Doriani, Mickelsen, Pierce/Groothuis and Scholer) and any other reading and experience of the student. The paper should make frequent and appropriate mention of relevent biblical texts and clearly reflect use of the required reading. Due: December 6 before 5:00 p.m. to David M. Scholer’s office; 50% of the course grade.

In our class, Dr. Scholer emphasized that the issue of women in the ministry comes down to an hermeneutical approach. The complementarians (or traditionalists) hinge their argument on 1 Tim 2, while the egalitarians (or evangelical feminists) place Gal 3:28 in the place of hermeneutical honor. Complementarians see 1 Tim 2 as a clear text and therefore worthy of guiding the discussion. From their point of view, there is no arguing with the fact that Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent” (2:12). Some feminists would agree that this text is clear; that is, the text is clearly oppressive to women and therefore is unacceptable. Evangelical egalitarians such as Dr. Scholer, on the other hand, feel that no biblical text can simply be thrown out of the canon and instead suggest that this text has a different primary meaning. Scholer does not call it an easy text, but he does point out some tricky points for the complementarians argument (which I’ll get to in another post). Gal 3:28, which proclaims that there is “no longer . . . male and female,” is seen by egalitarians as a principial text, one that announces a clear (gospel) principle that colors the whole conversation. It is the ideal of the new creation. The reason we have difficult New Testament texts on this issue at all is an indication that Paul and other NT authors had one foot in the new creation and one foot in the old. They lived with the ideals of the gospel liberty within them, but existed within a patriarchal and androcentric culture.

Interestingly, Christina (my wife) and I have been watching Shakespeare in Love one bit at a time. [PLOT SPOILER] We’ve just watched the point when Viola has shockingly appeared on stage as Juliet in an era when only men played women and women would never be seen on stage. In fact, Mr. Tilney attempts to shut down the play and arrest the players for the very reason that a woman was among the actors. But this is only after Viola has given a stirring, beautiful performance as Juliet and the crowd is awestruck by the wonder of the play. Queen Elizabeth prevents the arrests by insisting that Viola is in fact Master Thomas Kent, a man, and thus no violations occurred. Elizabeth says: “Yes, the illusion is remarkable and your error, Mr. Tilney, is easily forgiven, but I know something of a woman in a man’s profession, yes, by God, I do know about that.” In this play, the people have seen that the woman player has done a magnificent job of filling in for a man, but it must be done with a wink and a nod. The tides of culture cannot be changed in an instant, even if the ability of women has just been proven.

Christians who view women’s roles in traditional ways must deny women’s pastoral/leadership abilities exist, find an alternate explanation for them, or grant they exist but only for certain (limited) roles. For example, when lauding the great strength of Perpetua, the 2nd-3rd century woman martyr, Augustine of Hippo wonders how Perpetua, a woman, could do such great things? He concludes that she was a woman on the outside, but a man on the inside (Scholer, class lecture 11/29/2006). As a matter of fact, Perpetua envisions herself as a man when she dreams of taking on Satan in the arena (”My clothes were stripped off, and suddenly I was a man,” Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis , 10:7). It calls to memory the last verse of the gnostic text, The Gospel of Thomas, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven’” (114). The assumption was that women did not have the same abilities or virtues as men. The explanation for the appearance of those abilities and virtues: these particular women (the exceptions to the rule) have transcended their femaleness and have attained inner maleness.

It would be a rare complementarian these days that would argue, publicly at least, that women truly are not capable of doing the same things as men. Instead, the primary arguments are made theologically and biblically. Only men can be senior pastors, for example, because that’s the way that God made humanity, that’s what it says in the Bible. Are there women that are capable of doing it? Sure. But that is not the way it is supposed to be, they would say. This is why the conversation, if there is to be one, must take place on biblical grounds. If we toss aside the Bible, we make our arguments irrelevant to Bible-believing Christians. If we are Bible-believing (and Bible-following) Christians, we must wrestle with even the most difficult texts. There must be no proof text mudslinging here.