Bruce Ware on the Women Issue

I want to get off of this whole discussion on women as soon as I can because there are other things I want to blog about.  But, since I've stepped in it, I guess I'll have to stay until I can pull my foot out.

Through Adrian Warnock's blog I came across a link to a piece that Bruce Ware has written on the matter that I want to excerpt and see what the reaction to it is.

     Complementarianism is, in one important sense, central and not peripheral, primary and not secondary. Complementarianism is the view that God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood but different yet complementary in function, with male headship in the home and believing community being understood as part of God’s created design. By claiming that complementarianism is in some sense central and primary, please consider what I am and am not here claiming. I am not saying that Scripture’s teaching on an all-male eldership in the church, or male headship and wifely submission in the home, is central and primary doctrinally. No, I would reserve doctrinal primacy for such cardinal Christian beliefs as the triune nature of God, the substitutionary atonement, justification by faith alone, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and Christ’s literal and physical return to earth one day yet future—doctrines, that is, that impinge on the very truth of the gospel itself.

     This is not to say that male/female complementarity does not relate in important ways to these central doctrines. Indeed, the Trinity, for example, models equality of essence with differentiation of roles, which equality and differentiation are mirrored in man as male and female. And the substitutionary atonement was carried out by one who submitted freely to the will of His Father, thus demonstrating the joy and beauty both of authority (the Father who sent) and submission (the Son who obeyed).

     But, while biblical complementarity is connected to central Christian doctrines, it is not itself central doctrinally. This is why I believe it is wrong to charge evangelical egalitarians qua egalitarian as heretics. While I believe egalitarians err greatly in their rejection of male/female equality of essence and differentiation of roles, so long as they hold central doctrinal beliefs (as those mentioned above), differing here is not in itself a departure from orthodoxy.

    In what sense then is biblical male/female complementarity central and primary to the Christian faith? I believe this doctrine is central strategically in upholding the Christian faith within a culture all too ready to adopt values and beliefs hostile to orthodox and evangelical conviction.

So, did you catch that? The issue is central strategically, not doctrinally. Whaddaya think?

The flying of the fur may now commence. 

Related Tags: Current Affairs, Politics & Society, Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Church, Women, Women in leadership, Leadership, Elders, Teaching Elders, Ecclesiastical, Together for the Gospel

Comments

[joel hunter]

WhaddaI think? On one hand, refreshingly honest. Dr. Ware is admitting that we should hold to complementarianism for pragmatic, heuristic reasons, not principled ones. This makes the issue a tool, it accomplishes some desirable purpose in the eyes of its wielders.

On the other hand, as with all pragmatic justifications, as a normative principle it carries some (probably) unintended consequences. The normative claim is this:

I believe this doctrine is central strategically in upholding the Christian faith within a culture all too ready to adopt values and beliefs hostile to orthodox and evangelical conviction.

Now, 'this doctrine' refers to complementarianism. But why should it? In the first place, I don't think the social and cultural analysis is at all incisive; it only makes sense from the perspective of traditions, institutions and personal identities that already agree with Dr. Ware's conclusions. As with Dr. Duncan's reasons given in response to your previous post on this issue, Dr. Ware's reasons exhibit the same weakness of confusing effects for causes. I think this betrays a fundamentalist streak (I do not mean to use the label in a pejorative way, just descriptive) that responds to cultural challenges from a position of weakness and resentment, prescribing norms that treat the symptoms but not the disease.

Secondly, replace 'complementarianism' with 'young earth creationism' or 'purgatory' or 'papal infallibility' or 'asceticism' or 'separation' or 'teetotalism'. Lots of beliefs and practices can be defended on the basis of being counter-cultural and "strategically" central to combatting "values and beliefs hostile to orthodox and evangelical conviction." All of the above can be (and have been) defended as "biblical" (a word that has just about lost any meaning whatsoever). There's nothing distinctively Christian about Dr. Ware's view. It's an argument that works equally well in Islam, Mormonism, JWs, etc.

Another undercurrent I think that this episode is bringing closer to the surface is our Protestant problem with authority and hierarchy. Things would be so much easier if we could just pronounce what is right belief and get on with living it out. And we Protestants are constantly trying to do that in our own hamfisted ways, but it runs afoul of the core reformational attitude of semper reformanda.

[joel hunter]

The flying of the fur has now concluded.

[Glenn Piper]

Oh dear, round and round it all goes.
Joel: The word Biblical may have lost meaning for you, but there are many of us for which the term actually has real meaning i.e. 'Of or pertaining to or contained in or in accordance with the Bible'.
Now, 'purgatory' or 'papal infallibility' or 'asceticism' are not contained in the Bible, nor is 'teetotalism' (also none of them can be actually defended from the Bible despite what you imply). I am unsure what you mean by 'separation' so I wont comment.
'Complementarianism' and 'Young Earth Creationism' (to use your phrase) are in the Bible. Lumping them together in the same sentence with those that are not doesn't change that reality.
You find Dr Ware's statement lacking in incisiveness, whereas I and many others do not.
I know that none of what I have said will make the slightest bit of difference to you and those who think the same as you, but there you go.
God bless

Glenn

May the majesty of God and the weight of his glory and the grace of his dying and rising Son rest upon you. Amen.

[steveprost]

Joel,

In response to your viewpoint that has not already been mentioned:

Dr. Ware does not base his "hold(ing) onto complimentarianism for pragmatic, heuristic reasons" rather than "principled ones". That seems unfair, since Ware clearly assumes and asserts the TRUTH of the complimentarian position, and does not use pragmatics or strategy as a support for its mere 'truth'. He DOES, however, bring up "strategic" concerns for the distinctly different purpose of determining exactly how, or in what respect, this truth is important, or weightty. This IS the issue since the discussion David was attempting to initiate was directed primarily toward complimentarians in saying in essence, "yes, complimentarianism, but is it WEIGHTY and IMPORTANT enough to boldly raise and resultingly risk a degree of lessened biblical unity, rather than minimizing the issue to increase 'togetherness' of those who profess the true faith?". That judgment call takes sensitive discernment and appreciation for relative importance of the particular truth at issue, one which Ware and Wayne (and most Calvinist types Wayne speaks to like me) are already fully convinced of. Ware's article outstandingly explains a balanced viewpoint, although I think agreement with him still leaves resolution of the propriety of T4G's statement as an open question.

Personally, I think this issue 'significantly' tends to detract from faithful biblical doctrine similar to important issues such as inerrancy or the 'health and wealth in this life' gospel that T4G also chose to speak out on in defining their organizational boundary lines. I'm convinced they have faithfully and wisely outlined boundaries of their arm-in-arm togetherness for an interdenominational cause with issues like egalitarianism in a way that strikes at the heart of true acceptance of biblical authority in ways that issues such as teetotaling and paedobaptism do not, as articulated well in Ligon Duncan's comment responding to David Wayne's prior post on this issue.

Its a close call, but T4G does not purport to be laying boundary lines of the 'true church' or of believers in 'true gospel', but is a self-defined general movement attempting to strategically work with those sharing significantly similar viewpoints of biblical authority, preaching, the gospel, and how to forward that gospel in the broader looser evangelical church. Widening the tent of that organizational statement to include all 'true believers' in the gospel would defeat the reforming purpose of T4G as an organization.

[joel hunter]

Thanks, steveprost, for a thoughtful reply. I especially appreciate the space you leave for further consideration. You make a good case in defense of Dr. Ware's statement. My complaint is that it is philosophically very weak. Nothing wrong with strategic or pragmatic reasoning as long as everyone agrees with the truth of the position. But that is exactly what is controversial as many others have pointed out. I would agree with you that complementarianism tends to detract from more important issues, but I'm afraid that the linkage of complementarianism to true or effective gospel witness is an untenable overreach. It should be challenged and not ignored.

I do definitely agree with you about health-and-wealth. Plenty of concerned Christians have made their laundry lists of "false teachings" but never address the cause(s). Confusing effects for causes is very common when other factors are in play, such as political, social, psychological, etc., in addition to the genuine doctrinal issues. If I may caricature for a moment, many of the denials of the statement are manna from heaven to the community of Christians who thrive on denunciations: "Open theism...Woe! Seeker sensitive churches...Woe! Self-help, positive-thinking theology...Woe! N. T. Wright...Woe! Federal Vision...Woe! Emerging/Emergent church...Woe!" It really does come across as whiny and indefensibly dogmatic to those on the outside of all of these issues or to those who are not shaped in the same way by the non-doctrinal factors. As reformed christians, we ought to have a more wholistic outlook that doesn't settle for cherry-picking the false/poor teaching du jour, but wrestles with what we offer as an authentic, fully-orbed, positive alternative in light of social, political and historical reality. What there is by way of positive alternatives are sketchy at best and not at all clearly relevant (expository preaching?).

I am perfectly willing to grant that the intent of T4G is just as you describe, with noble purposes in mind, and not motivated to exclude large populations that confess Jesus as their Lord. But there is a disconnect between intent and perception. Perhaps it isn't important to address everyone's (mis)perceptions, but I think there is a valuable reason to reconsider the method they've chosen to go about their reforming mission.

I affirm--wholeheartedly--a community of like-minded Christians who gather together for mutual encouragement, support, prayer and strategic planning. The ACE has Reformation Societies, for example, that do just that. I do not begrudge the T4G guys or any of those who were ministered to by the conference any of that. The issue is the statement. I do not think it is much good at all. I think it draws lines too constrictively around the definition and meaning of the gospel and the church. You think that widening the tent would defeat its purpose. I disagree. I think you would find the evangelicals (Presbys, Anglican and Lutheran), Catholics and Orthodox of Reclaiming the Great Tradition very much concerned with many of the same issues articulated by the T4G guys, and that is why I suggested it as a better model.

The advantages of entering into dialogue in a wider tent are two-fold: (1) your own pet issues get put into a broader perspective, which should help overcome the difficulty of determining what's significant and what is not, and which may expose you to other issues that you may have been overlooking; (2) you get challenged rather than congratulated over your confessional line-drawing. But, and a big "but" here: no one demands that you redraw your confessional lines. This is where true common ground can stand out in greater relief and be such an encouragement. When informed, thoughtful, tough defenders of each tradition within Christendom can contend graciously with one another over why they hold so dearly to their distinctive tradition, but also where they are "together for the gospel" against the backdrop of a technocratic, secularized, economized global culture, the areas of agreement become that much clearer. And I think the T4G approach underestimates--hugely--how large that area of agreement is. The problem with T4G is that 99% of Christendom can ignore it (and will) (and some would say, should). Until this tributary of the southern-American reformed tradition connects catholically with the rest of orthodoxy, the issues that T4G seeks to address and redress will be left untouched by their efforts, noble and good-hearted as they may be.

[Jeremy Pierce]

Joel, admitting that a doctrine has practical consequences does not amount to admitting that the only reason to hold it is pragmatic.

The question is whether a doctrine is biblical. If it is, then those who reject it are usually doing so because they're giving in to cultural pressures. If it's not, then they may simply be agreeing with culture when it's right. Only if you assume that complementarianism is wrong do you get your response, but that's question-begging. If Ware is right that complementarianism is correct (as I think he is), then what he says makes perfect sense.

One reason this does relate to gospel witness is something Ware says that everyone is ignoring. If complementarianism is correct, then Ware is right in saying that rejecting is giving in to culture where culture is wrong. If that's what's going on, and it's going on for the sake of people trying to candy-coat Christianity to make it look as if it says something other than what the Bible says, then it betrays a willingness to sacrifice biblical teaching for cultural acceptance. That may not be a deliberate motive on the part of anyone, but it's a dangerous tendency if that's what's really going on. If complementarianism is correct, then that is present, even if it's not the only thing going on. That's how it relates to the gospel.

Now if complementarianism isn't true, then this isn't an issue. But we're discussing the issue of whether this is a gospel-related issue if complentarianism is correct, and it seems that there is at least this.

[joel hunter]

Jeremy, Dr. Ware's essay claims that complementarianism is not "central" or "primary" doctrine. If I understand him, he's saying that the doctrines of Nicaea, for example, are "central" or "primary." That puts Dr. Ware's position, I think, somewhat at odds with the T4G statement which ties failure to affirm complementarianism to damaging one's witness to the gospel. Am I (and others) really reading too much into it when we infer that the T4G statement is making complementarianism "central" or "primary" doctrinally? Judging by both advocates and critics, I don't think so.

Dr. Ware's point is not whether complementarianism is "biblical" in some general sense (obviously he thinks so). But I think he is, insofar as we're trying to determine how great an error egalitarianism is, allowing for more charity than the T4G statement. He says egalitarians, qua egalitarians, are not departing from orthodoxy. Although the T4G statement avoids the word 'heresy' throughout, I don't think it's an unfair inference to conclude that they DO see egalitarians departing from orthodoxy. Certainly that's the tenor, if not the explicit message, from much of the surrounding discussion on this issue.

So, on the question of who may be together for the gospel as determined by the importance of adhering to complementarianism: Dr. Ware--one point; T4G--zero. This is important. It's not just that the doctrine has practical consequences. Dr. Ware is arguing that complementarianism is only central strategically vis-a-vis civitas terrena. That is, its importance for church health is central and primary for its contrast to surrounding culture. That's not just working out the practical consequences; that's pragmatism. Suppose that the surrounding culture is not pressuring the church to change its views of women. Then, according to Dr. Ware's line of reasoning, complementarianism is no longer a central or primary issue (the strategy is no longer needed). I suspect that most defenders of complementarianism are not comfortable with that degree of relativity, particularly if you've shaped the very witness of the gospel around complementarianism.

I do not assume that complementarianism is wrong. I think there are strong, biblically-founded reasons for believing complementarianism. But I've also read some (but by no means a lot of) strong, biblically-founded cases for egalitarianism. As a result, I'm not willing to view this as an issue that lends itself to a judgment that conforms to the exclusiveness of binary logic (i.e., that either (a) or (b) is exclusively true). As with the warning to the egalitarian to check that they are not being formed by culture, the tables can be turned. If a good biblical case for egalitarianism can be made, and if in fact many spirit-filled Christians do believe and practice it, then the complementarian should also consider that they might be shaped by their culture, which also brings enormous pressures to conform socially, politically, etc. to that view. Of course, one doesn't see it that way if one believes that it's not culture, but the Bible or "true doctrine," that has decisively shaped one's views. I simply think the reality of fellow Nicaea-confessing saints who faithfully live out the gospel in a sin-sick world, but who are also egalitarians, ought to give us some pause before pronouncing them unorthodox, damaging the witness to the gospel, or holding false beliefs.

*turns to my fellow complementarians*

I propose an experiment. A team of complementarians should identify an area of ministry in their community to cooperate with a church or ministry that accepts egalitarianism. Methodists are nice folks. Give them a call. Next, see if you can work together to live and share the good news with the hurting, the broken and the lost. Who knows? You might find the Vicar of Dibley has a life and witness that testifies quite visibly to the Crucified and Risen One. What is "central" and "primary" to the good news might turn out to be blazingly simple and glorious.

[Suzanne McCarthy]

I don't quite understand how it is that the distinction of male/female roles is in the statement, when there is no direct mention in the statement of the role distinction within the trinity? If male/female complementarity is important in that it relates to the doctrine of the trinity, why is the doctrine of the trinity not given at least as much if not more attention than the male/female issue?

And how is Christ's submission, which is for our substitutionary atonement, related to the submission of wife to husband?

If this issue is to be made so important than it should at least be clear why.

[Ben Martin]

I believe that infant baptism is not "Biblical" but many other believers disagree. Interestingly, though that issue seems to me to be of far more import than whether we can ordain women, I rarely (actually, never) hear any denouncement of heresy against those that practice infant baptism from any sane voice within Christianity. Yet, there are those who would denounce egalitarians as heretics (whether the T4G statement does is, which it doesn't appear to explicitly, is not an issue - one does not have to search hard to find persons saying such things). Why the distinction? (I picked baptism but one could choose from many issues, of varying impact on practice: theology of eucharist, predestination, limited atonement, eternal security, eschatology, whatever. On many of these issues we have "agreed to disagree" as they say.)

The problem is that what is not Biblical to one may be Biblical to another. We HAD come to the point, I thought, where many within at least Protestantism had realized that such disagreements were generally unavoidable, and that the lines should be drawn only when absolutely necessary, and without ever denouncing one as a heretic except in the most extreme disagreements or the most ridiculous readings of the text (and I am afraid that I don't see that the issue of egalitarianism vs. complementarianism would qualify as either). This seems to be similar to what Ware is saying, if not quite identical. (A less pragmatic approach than Ware's might opt for allowing the disagreement as over freedom of conscience or some such.)

Also, let me add that comments that "unbiblical" doctrines (and who will decide that?) are that way because of caving into cultural issues misses the fact that many doctrinal disagreements (even when one doctrine is inferior biblically) originate out of genuine disagreements about the reading of the text. Even if this is not what happened in the case of egalitarianism, we can't a priori assume that it arose out of a desire to conform to culture. (Which is, incidentally, as far as I can tell blatantly ahistorical - egalitarianism in the curch seems to predate egalitarianism in the wider culture; see for example the Quakers.) Furthermore, we don't necessarily have to decide that complementarianism is false to accept egalitarianism within certain parameters. The fact that both may be a possible "biblical" doctrine might lead us to allow both without declaring one a heresy, but understanding that some may come to different conclusions. Many are requiring a much firmer barrier here than on so many other doctrinal issues, as I have already mentioned.

[Gina]

the doctrines of Nicaea, for example, are "central" or "primary"

Contrasting the "essential" doctrines of Nicaea against a "non-essential" doctrine of male headship is missing the forest for the trees. Who spoke for the church at Nicaea? Male bishops.

Certainly there were prominent women in the early church, as at least no Catholic or Orthodox believer has cause to doubt, but looking for a written statement on male headship (assuming the Bible's statements aren't sufficient!) is sign of a rather modernist, legal approach to the formation of doctrine. Doctrine did not only come from the words that were spoken or written, but from the very life of the church. That life speaks most clearly, up until our day, on the issue of male headship of the church and family.