When the Bible teaches and demonstrates that men and women fulfill different roles in relation to each other, it charges man with a unique leadership role, basing this difference not on temporary cultural norms but on permanent facts in the Creation account and Fall (Genesis 1-3; Ephesians 5:21-33; and 1 Timothy 2:11-14).
The whole of Scripture's culture was based on this creation order that is a mere extension of the universe. Leadership in Scripture is largely handled by men, with very few exceptions (for example, Athaliah chose herself, Barak needed a little boning up by Deborah). The Old Testament theocracy had God choosing leaders (patriarchs, kings, priests) throughout His people's history. The New Testament found Jesus choosing twelve men as His apostles, and the Holy Spirit inspiring Paul (in two epistles) to write that an elder of the new church should be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).
Feminists hate differentiated spheres or roles because they believe that they demean women. They feel that a submissive role means that woman is permanently an inferior person. But spheres have nothing to do with soul value . Galatians 3:28There is neither male or female, does not have to do with non-differentiation. The context bears out that this passage talks about soul value (ontological worth, if you want to get technical about it). Real worth has nothing to do with position or sphere, but rather with the infinite price paid for my redemption. Worth is not tied to potential but rather to who we already are in Christ. Jesus' model of value certainly did not include position. But His model showed how true greatness is not afraid of going down and never expecting to come up.
Feminists are down on the Biblical system of the patriarchy . They feel that the Bible was written with a bias. Patriarchs and all peoples (and presumably God) were prejudiced. They say that passages were written by authors who were men of their own culture. No need to hate Paul! He was just a victim of his times. But are his words to be taken seriously? No, they are merely of local (not universal) import. Or they are restricted to families.
How do we know whether something is of local import or universal import in Scripture? When Paul stipulates that men should hold the position of elder or overseer, does he say, Now Timothy, this counsel is just for your problematic church? On the contrary, a few verses later, in 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul stipulates that this counsel is given so that Timothy would know how he ought to behave in the church of the living God. God lives onthe message lives on! We are told, All Scripture is given by inspiration. Scripture is of no private interpretation.
Further, do we interpret all of Scripture on the basis of one textGalatians 3:28? As Wayne Grudem demonstrates, we may only find out what Scripture says by interpreting the smaller parts faithfully in their nearer context. This is called the hermeneutical circle : the parts determine the whole, and the whole affects how we interpret the parts. Our concern is that any supposed whole' or theme' or thrust' . . . should not be used to nullify the contribution of any other part of Scripture. ii
Much is made of the feminists' trajectory (direction) of Scripture that culminates in Galatians 3:28. Aside from the fact that 1 Timothy and Titus were penned after Galatians, such a view has a liberation theology construct rather than the viewpoint of the great controversy. Liberation theology's main concern is freedom from oppression, whereas the central problem of the great controversy is freedom from sin, not oppression (though freedom from sin would certainly include freedom from all oppression forever and ever). Jesus' peers hoped He would come to set them free from the Romans. Jesus disappointed them. He came to deliver the sinful heart. Feminists today would like to tell us that Jesus came to set us free from male superiority. In fact, He does. His design is to make the male's headship so delightful that it is a privilege and joy to submit.
Evangelical feminists generally have trouble with the Scriptural roles of women. But radical feminists go much farther. Because these feminists believe that the authors who penned Scripture were under patriarchal influence, all Scripture becomes open to reinterpretation and reconstruction, or subject to being put on a par with any other literature. Elizabeth Cady Stanton edited The Women's Bible back in 1895 by seriously reinterpreting all stories and passages that were troublesome to women's rights. She advocated reading the Bible as we do all other books, accepting the good and rejecting the evil it teaches. She felt that its objectionable features would long ago have been apparent had they not been glossed over with a faith in their divine inspiration.iii |