Kristen

Ok, this last section is pretty volatile. I hope it doesn’t make Mark terribly angry– but he was blunt and direct about what he said about the egalitarian position, and I must in honest rebuttal, do the same.

Calvin and Luther don’t try and reintroduce slavery into the 16th Century, for example, which one would expect them to do if Christians have always considered slavery to be normative. The early church did not campaign to keep slavery going, or hold it up as something universally and unqualifiedly good. So it’s a misperception about how the Church understood slavery – similar to the argument that all Christians believed that the Bible taught a flat world before Galileo. There are a number of early church fathers who believed (like many philosophers at that time) in a round world.

So the issues aren’t parallel. The mainstream tradition did not think that slavery was obligatory (i.e. normative) – that God wanted slaves in all times and places. Usually people argued (at most) that it was possible under certain conditions. And there had been different views on the shape of the world. But no-one believed that the passages in question taught an egalitarian view of marriage. The people arguing for slavery didn’t just peg their case on the household codes either – they drew on a wide range of texts as well for their position, so that part of the argument is wrong as well.

Further, there is a disanalogy in that those contesting slavery and arguing for a round world were going against the grain of the society of the day, while those supporting the received position were reflecting the consensus of their society. In the current debate that shoe is on the other foot – egalitarianism is the view that seems reasonable and obvious to our unbelieving contemporaries.

I agree with the basic point – have to show from the Bible as a whole, and not just assume. But I think the other side has to be in play as well. To say that the whole church got it wrong for two thousand years about something so ethically important is a big claim. To say that at a time when the view in question simply reflects the moral intuition of our own society is an orange light. The teaching of scripture has to be really, really, really clear for that to be the case. And egal reasoning on these things is hardly ‘clear’, even if it is true, it is more like ‘torturous’ or ’subtle’ as a description. That can’t decide matters, but it needs to be given some significant weight.

I must begin by saying that though Calvin and Luther don’t try to reintroduce slavery into the 16th century– and though the Roman Church had influenced the decline of slavery in the Middle Ages, serfdom was an institution well into Calvin and Luther’s time, and to the best of my knowledge, neither one spoke against it. Serfdom was, of course, a form of slavery– only it was bondage to the land rather than to the slave owner. Serfs could not be sold away from their families, therefore– but neither did they have the power to leave the land they were bound to. I would tend to say that as a whole, the church has had an ambivalent attitude towards institutions of slavery. The church also had a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards marriage in its early years, believing virginity and celibacy to be spiritually superior; which of course is one attitude that Calvin and Luther both worked to change. And it does seem as if evangelical Protestantism has gone too far the other way, discouraging singlehood as an equally viable choice for Christians, which I firmly believe the New Testament teaches to be the case.

So I will agree that marriage and slavery are not exactly parallel. But it’s not saying a lot to say that those who used the scriptures to defend slavery drew on a wide range of texts, not just the household codes. It is the usual case that a person holding a certain position as “biblical,” will draw on a wide range of texts that they believe support their position, directly or indirectly. The point is that slavery, parenthood and marriage were all part and parcel of first-century households, and therefore it does make sense to look at the passages that deal with the three of them as a group, as what is said (and not said) about one, may have some bearing on what is said about the other two.

Nor do I think it’s saying much to say, “no one believed that the passages in question taught an egalitarian view of marriage.” They didn’t teach that– not in the way you mean. The most that I can say as an egalitarian is that Paul believed that Christ had restored the relations between the sexes such that men and women could be “one” in their full, equal status as “sons” in Christ– and that this equality must inform the relations of husbands and wives, in a culture and setting that were patriarchal. To say the passages have “egalitarian marriage” in view is to be anachronistic– just as it would be anachronistic to say Paul was “anti-slavery.“ But this does not mean that the passages can be said to “teach” or uphold slavery or male rule in marriage– rather, the passages address slavery and male rule in marriage facts of that society which the infant religious movement had to accommodate. But accommodation is what I believe Paul was teaching. It is in this way that Paul’s teachings about slavery can inform our view of what he meant by his teachings about husband-rule– for if he was not endorsing slavery as a divinely mandated institution, we cannot say he is clearly endorsing male rule as divinely mandated either– not in light of his statements in Galatians 3 and 4 about “no slave or free, no male or female” and Christians from all these groups being “adopted as sons” and “one in Christ Jesus.”

Why, then, did “the whole church get it wrong for two thousand years about something so ethically important?” The first reason I would give is that “he shall rule over you” was a consequence of the Fall, just like thorns and thistles in the fields. We still have not managed to eradicate thorns and thistles, though we still fight against them. The male desire to rule over the female is something intrinsic to the fallen human nature, and no easier to eradicate than the thorns and thistles– and in the case of male rule, for most of history the human race has made no attempt to fight against it, but males who wished to rule in Christendom have used it as one of the building blocks of their power.

Which brings us to my second reason. Why did the church believe holy war in Jerusalem was a way to honor God? Why did the church as a whole uphold the “divine right of kings” as a biblical mandate? Why did popes use the name and authority of the Apostle Peter to build their own personal wealth and influence?

Because it is a fact of history that through the ages, Christians in places of power or privilege have used the Scriptures as buttresses to their power and privilege. Any statement in the Bible that can possibly be used to do this, has been so used, and many are still being so used today. Spiritually abusive sects like the shepherding movement have used the Bible to uphold the authority of leaders over the rank-and-file members. The domestic discipline movement uses it to uphold a husband’s “right” to spank his wife. Southern United States slaveholders taught that the curse of Noah on the sons of Ham meant that the black race was intended by God to serve the white race. Upholders of Apartheid in South Africa taught similar doctrines. The English aristocracy taught the peasants to pray, “God bless the king and his relations, and keep us all in our proper stations,” and preached that stepping out of the station to which you were born was rebellion against God. Many of these sects have taught that they way they interpret the Bible is the way the church has interpreted it since its inception, that their position is therefore privileged, and that the Bible “clearly” supports their position over and against that of the opposition.

In fact, if you will click on this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=S1ZEtrmbPRwC&ots=lq1ATez_K9&dq=A%20Scriptural%2C%20Ecclesiastical%2C%20and%20Historical%20View%20of%20Slavery&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

and begin reading at around page 45 at arguments put forward for black slavery against the Abolitionists in the United States, you will find the following ideas (these are summaries of the arguments):

That the Church has traditionally, for 1800 years prior to the the current age, supported slavery.

That the plain sense of the Scriptures is pro-slavery.

That the problem is not the institution of slavery, but the abuse of it by some men.

That those who oppose slavery are bowing to the godlessness of their own modern culture.

That the African race is designed by God to be under the white race, as can be proved in the book of Genesis, and is happiest when it embraces that design.

Whether or not any of these arguments for black slavery had any real basis in history or Scripture is another issue– but the fact is that the arguments, when reduced to their basics, look very much like many of the complementarian arguments. It is the nature of human beings to use whatever arguments are perceived as having the most power, in support of their position– and there are few things in our world even today, that have as much power in the human mind, as Scripture. Therefore, what ought to get the “orange light” are positions on Scripture which tend to uphold the power of groups that have long held power– when Christ’s parable about not seeking the highest places at the banquet, is in direct opposition to such uses. (I am not saying complementarians are deliberately seeking power– and I’m certainly not saying their hearts are wrong or that the oppression of women is their goal. But these human social trends and historical patterns are things that need to be looked at steadily and honestly. As you said, this can’t decide matters, but it needs to be given some significant weight.)

In light of this, this argument:

“Those contesting slavery and arguing for a round world were going against the grain of the society of the day, while those supporting the received position were reflecting the consensus of their society. In the current debate that shoe is on the other foot – egalitarianism is the view that seems reasonable and obvious to our unbelieving contemporaries”

seems lacking in perspective. The movement that eradicated black slavery in England and the US was largely made up of Christians, and weight and thrust of the whole counsel of Scripture was used by these Christian groups to uphold the idea of the full equality of the races, against those who would cite certain texts as means to uphold white power. In the same way, most of the pioneers of the early feminist movement– the women’s suffragettes– were Christian in beliefs, outlook and foundational ideals. These ideas are not so much offspring of the Enlightment as they are offspring of the Second Great Awakening.

Both movements were very counter-cultural in their inception and in their long, hard-won fight against oppression. The reason they seem “reasonable and obvious” to us now is because they succeeded in persuading society of the injustice of the opposing view. Are our idealistic Christian forerunners now to be rewarded for their blood, sweat and tears by having their position mistrusted for having won?

Another thing is that the current complementarian position is not actually what the church has believed for 2000 years. Complementarians believe that women are equal, but have different roles such that the roles of authority in the church and home belong to men. The long-held traditional view of the church has been that women are inferior in mind and body and are designed to be under male authority, not just in the church and home, but in the business world as well. Since women have now abundantly proved that they are just as capable as men in the secular sphere, modern complementarians have re-examined their Bibles and found that to uphold the notion that women are inferior to men, or that women should not be allowed any place in society other than as keepers of the home, is not as biblical as the church once thought. Egalitarians simply take this a step further and say that if the weight and thrust of the whole counsel of Scripture is for female equality, why would this not be full, functional equality in all spheres of life? Is the position that women belong under male authority in the church and home, really as biblical as the church once thought– and as many in the church still think?

That pretty much concludes my arguments. I recognize the volatility of some of what I have shared in this last section, and though I have spoken bluntly, it has not been my intention to judge complementarians or any of my brothers or sisters in Christ. God bless.