Women in Ministry, 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, and the Meaning of Head (kephale): Andrew Bartlett 

With all due respect to her, having read the review in CBMW, it was not the standard of thoughtful engagement I would have hoped for. There were multiple statements (such as denying the reality that the Patristics such as Tertullian or Aquinas and even theologians like Barth in his discussion of image did argue or assent to female ontological inferiority in at minimum the areas of rationality and/or possession of image) and the seeming assertion that the very recent discussion of complementarity in terms we largely didn’t see prior to the 1900’s is automatically how gender complementarity discussion has progressed for 2000 years- I don’t think we can assume her position is the historical one either. The whole discussion that struck me as very … lacking nuance…for someone who has a doctorate. I also didn’t appreciate the assertion that Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty is the gold standard for how authority is. I’ve never understood this part and I’ve never found anyone to address it well. If someone agrees and listens to another person, it should be because that person is telling the truth. If so, really, you’re submitting to Jesus because actually it’s just right and true and you should listen no matter where that happens to come from- your child might even speak truth and you should follow that. If the person is not speaking truth, you can’t submit. So either way, you’re actually following Jesus not people and the person has no authority over you- not in the sense that Kuyper argues for anyway, from my understanding. I just don’t see any way around a problematic middle man unless we assent that no person has authority. That’s Bonhoeffer’s argument anyway. Freedom to directly interact with Christ, no person in between. Then, she seems to assume Roman household codes are the standard for family units, but this isn’t a Christian invention, so why would we assume Paul is endorsing the Roman codes as opposed to working within an established system and subverting it? I’m suspicious of assigning Christian approval to secular household units and assuming that is how God’s household is also meant to work. I want God’s household to work according to God’s household code! Then, there were multiple statements of what Bartlett did or didn’t say that had no supporting citation or evidence, not to mention that having listened to the episode, then reading her quotes, I couldn’t help but think were read in a strange interpretive way- I’m not sure I could honestly say I felt she engaged in good faith. Lastly, it seemed like she’d make a point of a proposed weakness and immediately have that same weakness herself (ie choosing her interpretation of creation as the starting point after critiquing his starting point being his interpretation of 1 Corinthians- what if in fact an eschatological progression is instead the best starting point? She gave no supporting argument for her choice as being better.) The entire review came off as rhetorical, and kind of… well… abrasive.

PS- perhaps the most important disagreement I had and worth clarifying goes back to her use of Timothy as the overall point being the ordering of God’s household. Agreed. Of course the household will tie back to the family, otherwise why use family terminology. But surely that in no way proves specific roles within the family. She ties it back to her interpretation of Genesis and I’m just not sure that’s how the ancient audience or participants would have conceived of the Genesis text especially in light of the Royal priestly and functional views of imago Dei. They aren’t thinking Christ- they’re thinking representation of Yahweh, and reinterpretation of the text later isn’t the original idea. Which is fine- but it’s a lot harder to claim that’s the meaning of marriage from time immemorial. It wasn’t originally a picture of Christ/the church to the audience. In the same way, one has to wonder what exactly ‘paul’ means by household and what kind of roles he envisions and how this was taken by the original audience. One wonders whether she’s reading the household code onto the church without considering what changes from the contemporary accepted codes might be made and why- which is exactly Bartlett’s point. Why would it need to be reinterpreted? What’s the differences? So I don’t think she represents him well there.

Andrew Bartlett was unable to sign in to reply to this comment, but here's what he said in reply: I have had friendly contact with Sharon James, but I regret her review of my book on behalf of CBMW was a missed opportunity to engage with what I wrote. Her review attributed to me statements that I did not say, beliefs that I do not hold, and assumptions that I did not make. In some cases, what she represented the book as saying or implying was not merely wrong but was the exact opposite of the words on the page. CBMW declined to correct the review or give me an opportunity to respond. Here’s an example. Sharon wrote: “Throughout his book, Bartlett uses “patriarchy” … as a smear word”. But in fact I don’t use the term “patriarchy” at all. In the whole book, this word appears just once, in the title of an egalitarian article which I mention in a footnote for the purpose of disagreeing with it (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts, page 206; full reference at page 400). It is a sadness that this kind of thing is all too common in the complementarian-egalitarian debate. My plea to my brothers and sisters is to engage more carefully with each others’ viewpoints. Then there is a possibility of some progress in understanding.

There's also that overall theme of unity and oneness in 1 Corinthians, which the body-to-head metaphor echoes. The one is integral to the other: a body needs a head, just as a head needs a body. In no way does that undo the head=source idea, of course; in fact, I'd' say it adds to the idea of an integral relationship, Adam being the source of Eve, and henceforth all of mankind coming through women. Kinda kicks the legs out from under the hierarchical model that neither male nor female is subordinate when they are unified.

Source also implies same substance, therefore equal as in not being inferior of one to the other.

Then you have to be calling him a liar, as he clearly stated he had no dog in the fight and didn't care which way he landed. Your statement makes a claim that he is a liar.

@@annlowry9841 Plus, he started in a complementarian environment, and that was the point-of-view he assumed, so his "already held belief" was NOT egalitarian.

Andrew Bartlett is a man that grew up in a male dominated world. He is a perfect candidate to be pledged to Complementarianism. Preston, though verbally respectful, is obviously struggling with some of Bartlett’s conclusions by the way he fidgets and squirms in his chair. I think that is because he knows that what Andrew Bartlett is saying makes perfect sense contextually. I think Preston secretly struggles with his desire to rule over women, most men do.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.