Women And Other Creatures: The Gender Debate

0 Comments

Women And Other Creatures: The Gender Debate1
By Joe E. Trull

The Debate About History
The Debate About The Bible
The Debate about Ministry
Endnotes

Dr. Joe E Trull is Professor of Christian Ethics at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. His most recent book, Christian Ethics: Facing Tough Issues with Biblical Principles and Sound Reasoning is scheduled for release by Broadmans and Holman Publishers this year.

In the early 1800s, Texas was a frontier territory. One historian noted that settlers believed "Indians were to be killed, African Americans were to be enslaved, and Hispanics were to be avoided." In the 1830s these "Texicans" built a Baptist church at Independence which had two doors: one for white males and the other for "women and other creatures."2

The battle between the sexes did not begin with Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. The status of "women and other creatures" has been a topic of constant debate since Eve ate the forbidden fruit and Adam blamed her and God for the consequences (Gen. 3:12-16). Patriarchy, male domination, discrimination, and sexism have characterized every civilization.

The Greek myth of Amazon female warriors who ruled a society in Scythia is pure fantasy. Also idealistic was Plato`s just state composed of three classes of equal people. The reality is that in every society, including Plato`s Greek republic, women have been treated as second-class citizens, inferior and unworthy of equality.

The devaluation of females has been a recurring episode in human history. In the nineteenth century, however, a reversal of this trend began. The American feminist movement, closely related to the abolitionist movement, was directed almost exclusively by women who were basically Christian in their religious commitments. At the same time, the main weight of opposition to the movement came from religious groups, mainly male clergy who used the Bible to support their disagreement.

In the twentieth century equality for women has moved toward becoming a reality. Eighty years ago women could not vote; today they are elected as mayors, governors, senators, and justices. During World War II they were called upon to join the workforce; today career women work in almost every vocation. Four decades ago, women had no guarantee of equal access to employment, housing, education, or credit; today these rights are established by law. Furthermore, in language and in law, the abuse of women has become a major concern.

The subject of male and female roles and relationships has become a key issue within the contemporary church. During the last decade, few topics have generated more heated discussion among both Protestants and Roman Catholics. Feminist studies are common in theological schools, with no shortage of books and articles for the bibliography. Feminist theology is the topic of conferences, as well as a major "bone of contention" in many denominations.

The interpretation of key biblical statements about male and female has been central in the debate among conservative Christians. Two distinct camps have emerged-Christian feminism (i.e., "biblical equalitarians") and traditionalism (i.e., "complementarians"). The current debate among Christians concerning gender issues focuses on three major areas: the history of female roles, the interpretation of biblical passages, and the appropriate ministry for women in the church.

The Debate About History

Throughout Christian history, the approach of the church toward the role of women too often has been to adopt the views of society, declaring them to be the "biblical" stance. One cultural viewpoint toward gender roles has been constant: the subordination of women to male authority.3 Patriarchy, however, did not originate within the Judeo-Christian tradition. It has prevailed in virtually all cultures throughout history.

The debate about history has focused on the record of gender roles in the past. Do the Scriptures teach distinct roles for males and females, verified by human history?

The traditionalists insist that from the beginning God ordained separate functions for male and female. According to this paradigm, the husband works outside the home to provide financial support, while the wife attends to the household and the children. In the "traditional" family, the wife is dependent on her husband not only financially, but also for identity and social status. In addition, motherhood is a primary calling for every woman, homemaker is a full-time occupation, and a career outside the home for a female is a threat to the well-being of society.

According to this model, "[W]omen`s delicacy and fragility are contrasted with men`s virility and physical strength; women are regarded as the opposite sex, different from men in every way. . . . The woman of the house, drawing on her `feminine` moral purity, is the maker and provider of these benefits of the home for the family members."4 Traditionalists believe this understanding of gender roles is corroborated by the Bible and church tradition, and that all "feminist thought" is a direct reflection of modern culture.

Christian feminists challenge this antifeminist argument. Biblical equalitarians contend that much of what is billed as "traditional" is not traditional at all. In fact, the model of family life promoted by traditionalists was actually developed in middle-class Victorian society and revived in the suburban domesticity of the 1950s. Feminists argue that to cling to this model and claim it is the "traditional" biblical ideal is to misread history, misuse the Bible, and accommodate to culture.

Which group is correct about the history of gender roles? Let us attempt an answer by taking a brief look at social changes affecting gender roles during the last two centuries.

In nineteenth century America, the Industrial Revolution separated the home from the workplace. When industrialization removed the center of industry from the farm to the factories, the Puritan "idea of marriage as an economic and spiritual partnership, sweetened by love, bit the dust. The `love` part alone remained and became the fragile romantic ideal prized by later centuries as the supposed basis of marriage."5

For centuries before the Industrial Revolution, the home served as both economic producer and consumer. It was a necessity for women and children to labor alongside their husbands and fathers at home. Life was a struggle. Marriage was more of an economic arrangement than a romantic relationship. Children were often mistreated and neglected.

With industrialization the home was no longer essential to economic production and thus the woman`s role was redefined. In previous centuries, women had been scorned, feared, and ruled by men because of their supposed seductive and rationally inferior "animal" nature. By the nineteenth century, the man`s "right" to rule woman was so well entrenched that this rationale was no longer needed. The new approach to gender roles was the view that woman was morally and spiritually inclined and that man possessed the "animal" nature.

The Freudian credo that women`s domains were "Kinder, Kuche, und Kirche" (children, cooking, and church) summed up the nineteenth-century Victorian mentality. The "True Woman" was "an innocent delicate creature. Her fragility demanded she not soil her hands with work but lounge decorously about the home; . . . The relationship of female to male was perceived in terms of dichotomies. Her purity compensated for his wickedness. Her frailty was protected by his energy and industry. Her religious sentimentality was offset by his superior rationality. Her private role did not encroach upon his public role."6

The family model of the Victorian middle class remained dominant in American culture through the 1960s, enjoying an upsurge of popularity in the 1950s. Andrew Sinclair noted in 1965, "We are the new Victorians. . . . Victorian traditions still rule the proper place of women in business and in the home."7 James Hunter characterized the twentieth-century "traditional" family as a "hypersentimentalized" version of the nineteenth-century Victorian family, which itself was more sentimental than the pre-industrial family.8

The role of women also underwent several alterations in the twentieth century:

The helping professions and government programs removed from women earlier roles of charity and social reform.
Contraceptive technology led to fewer children, increased health, longer life, and more personal time.
Growing economic prosperity allowed women to rely entirely upon their husbands for financial needs.
Sexuality became a woman`s true identity; she was a "sex creature" whose destiny in life was determined by her femininity.9
Although early twentieth-century feminism encouraged women to embark upon vocations, by the 1940s and 1950s careers came to be considered unfeminine, except for single women. During World War II, women did work in defense related jobs, but these jobs were not careers. When the men came back, women were obliged to return home. By the 1950s women had fled the professions to concentrate on motherhood, accepting the judgment of culture that their sole significance in life was to bear children.

During the 1960s and 1970s when mainstream feminism was most militant, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all states, sexual norms changed, divorces increased, and moral values deteriorated. To a large degree the traditionalist movement was goaded by the belief that feminism was a causal factor in this breakdown of society.11 Many evangelicals and social conservatives called for a return to the "traditional" family, a response the Bergers wrote "must be seen essentially as a backlash phenomenon."11

Few would deny that feminism has played a major role in bringing equality to twentieth-century women. But not without some cost. Feminist bestsellers of the 1960s and 1970s often projected a negative image of American women.12 A radical feminist ethic emerged which taught that the way to alleviate women`s plight was to achieve total autonomy for females-political, economic, sexual, and reproductive freedom, either through separation or seizing power from men.13 This radicalism divided the feminist movement.

Many observers have noted a split in the Christian feminist movement, not unlike the way secular feminism has separated. The more radical "gender feminist" theologians emphasize the meaning of femaleness and the need to "re-imagine" traditional beliefs, while "equity feminism" (i.e., "biblical equalitarians") affirms that orthodox Christianity is essentially correct but needs structural reform to achieve biblical equality and basic rights, and to end discrimination.

What then is the verdict of history? The gender roles celebrated by complementarians seem to be more the tradition of particular societies than a permanent principle. Contrariwise, the gender equality proposed by Christian feminists claims a Judeo-Christian heritage founded on a biblical ideal. As Rebecca Groothius concluded, "The real issue, of course, is not whether the gender roles prescribed by traditionalists are truly traditional, but whether they are beneficial and prescribed by God."14

The Debate About The Bible

This brings us to a second consideration-the debate over biblical teachings about gender. What does the Bible really say about women and men?15 To track the questions evangelicals are asking about male and female relationships in the Bible is like tracking the eye of a hurricane. Gender issues are storm centers in biblical studies.

When President Jimmy Carter was speaking in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment at a town meeting in Elk City, Oklahoma, he appealed to Christ, not Paul, for support. "I think if one reads different parts of the Bible you can find a good argument either way . . . . I know that Paul felt very strongly that there ought to be a sharp distinction between men and women and women`s role ought to be minimal. But I have a feeling that Christ meant for all of us to be treated equally, and he demonstrated this in many ways."16

Can the problem be resolved by choosing between Jesus and Paul? Like the issues of slavery, the Sabbath, and war, the role of women in church and society has divided biblical scholars. Both complementarians and equalitarians know what the Bible says; the real question is what does the Bible mean?

A growing number of Christians are calling for a return to biblical equality, contending that false exegeses of Scripture have misled many conservatives to uphold gender roles for women that are derived from culture, not biblical revelation. Biblical equalitarians (i.e., Christian feminists) are committed to the authority of the Bible. They point to a wealth of solid exegesis in this century that questions many of the conclusions of traditionalists and rejects the unbiblical approach of secular feminists.

In response, a number of Christian traditionalists contend that Christian feminists have succumbed to cultural pressures and the influence of contemporary secular feminists. Quoting various Bible passages which they believe support the "complementarian" (a term some prefer) position, the traditionalists view Christian feminism as simply a conformity to "political correctness" in our culture and a denial of biblical authority.

The creation story in the first two chapters of Genesis offers the first puzzle in male and female roles and illustrates the depth of the debate. The first creation narrative seems to present woman as equal with man (1:24-30); the second story seems to subordinate woman to man (2:7-25). Traditionalists favor the second account, while feminists favor the first one. Let us take a closer look at the opening chapters of the Bible to understand the approach of these two camps, especially their hermeneutical method.

The first Genesis record stresses that both sexes were created simultaneously in the image of God: "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; . . . So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (1:26-27). Christian feminists consider this a key passage in support of equality. However, some complementarians argue with Augustine that the woman with her husband is the image of God, but that she alone is not.17

In addition, the first man and woman are both responsible to God as stewards of the created order: "let them have dominion" (1:26b). This principle is reiterated in the command for them "to till and keep" (2:15) the earth.

In the second account of Creation (2:4-24), "the Lord God formed man [ha adam] from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man [ha adam] became a living being" (2:7). Hebrew language scholars point out that the use of the definite article ha before adam usually indicates the more inclusive idea of "humanity" (as in Gen. 2:24), which the NRSV translation reflects.

Traditionalists have sometimes contended that since the man [ha adam] was created before the female, appearing first chronologically, some sort of predominance is implied. The response of biblical equalitarians is twofold. The argument fails etymologically because the Hebrew word adam (adamah, "earth") could more accurately be translated "earth creature," a human being originally without gender.18 The argument also fails logically-just because the animals were created before adam does not mean animals are superior to humans.

The first response is further supported by Paul Jewett, who built upon earlier theological formations of Karl Barth.19 In Man as Male and Female, the Fuller Seminary theologian wrote, "Not only do men and women alike participate in the divine image, but their fellowship as male and female is what it means to be in the image of God. . . . To be Man is to be male or female, male and female, and consequently the discussion of this mysterious duality cannot be postponed until one has said what is to be said about Man as such. To talk about Man as such is precisely to talk about Man as man and woman."20

According to this viewpoint, out of the undifferentiated humanity of adam, the "earth creature" was separated into male (ish) and female (ishshah). Adam awoke from his sleep to see a reflection of himself, a complement to himself, indeed a very part of himself (2:22-23). John R. W. Stott observed that this biblical truth reveals marriage is more than a union; it is a reunion of two persons who originally were one and then separated, and now they are able to become "one flesh" (2:24) again through heterosexual intimacy.21

Another controversial aspect of the creation story is the depiction of the wife in the second chapter as a "helper" ("help meet," KJV, 2:18). Reflecting on this verse, one traditionalist wrote, "So, was Eve Adam`s equal? Yes and No. She was his spiritual equal, and, unlike the animals, `suitable for him,` but she was not his equal in that she was his `helper.` . . . A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. . . . It is the word `helper` that suggests the woman`s supportive role."22

Christian feminists retort that this term does not connote a secondary position. The Hebrew word for "helper" (ezer) is used 14 of 21 times to refer to God as a superior helper. Along with the next word in the verse, "alongside" (neged), the two words may be translated, "a power equal to him." To argue that the word "helper" connotes an inferior or subordinate role is neither biblical nor consistent with the usage of the Hebrew term.23

In the third chapter of Genesis a new element appears-sin entered the human race. The results for men and women were disastrous. Complementarians often quote the statement found there, "Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (3:16b), as a prescriptive command from God. Biblical equalitarians counter that this statement, like the parallel imperatives about pain in childbearing (3:15a) and work becoming burdensome labor (3:17b-19a), is a description of the results of sin.

Traditionalists often point to the male-oriented society of the Israelite community as further proof of God`s intent. No one doubts that in Hebrew society, females were relegated to a secondary role, often treated more like property than persons.

Christian feminists read this history in two ways. First, the Old Testament world was patriarchal and hostile toward female leadership, but the reason for this was human sin, not divine intent.

A second fact contrasts with the first. In that male-dominated society, a number of women emerged as leaders in Israel: Miriam the prophetess (Exod. 15:20-21), lauded by Micah as a spiritual leader (Mic. 6:4); Zipporah the wife of Moses, who assumed the role of priest in a moment of crisis (Exod. 4); Deborah the judge-general-prophet-poet of Israel, handpicked by God to deliver the nation (Jg. 4-5); and Huldah the prophetess, who triggered the great revival under King Josiah (2 Kgs. 22-23).

One biblical scholar has noted that in over 100 places in Scripture women are affirmed, yet the debate about gender issues tends to focus on a few passages in the New Testament that are extremely difficult to interpret and seem to propose a subordinate role for women. Time and space will not allow an exegesis of each of these scriptures, but a comparison of the basic exegetical approach of complementarians and equalitarians will help to clarify the debate.

An important aspect of interpretation is cultural setting. All biblical texts are culture-conditioned, but some texts are culture-bound and cannot be translated to the present. Of major importance for understanding male and female roles in the New Testament is to comprehend the social milieu. In both Jewish and Graeco-Roman societies of the first century, cultural norms prescribed to women very definite roles and codes of conduct.24

The historical particularities of the first century are obvious in Paul`s writings to the earliest churches. Few Christians today follow the apostle`s advice to women about not cutting their hair or wearing a veil (1 Cor. 11:2-16) and being silent and subordinate in worship (1 Cor. 14:33-36).

However, Paul`s directives for wives to be submissive to their husbands in the home (Eph. 5:21-6:4), for women not to teach or have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12), and for men alone to serve as pastors or deacons (1 Tim. 3:2, 12) are considered permanent precepts by most traditionalists.

On the other hand, biblical equalitarians believe these three passages, like other Pauline writings, must also be interpreted culturally. Before the texts can be translated into contemporary settings, a correct understanding of Greek domestic life and language,25 of the Gnostic threat in Ephesus,26 and the cultural options open to the biblical writers27 is imperative.

Even among complementarians, many differences exist about the specific meaning of these texts. For example, the "submission" (Eph. 5:22) of the wife to the husband may mean (1) total obedience in every decision (Gothard), (2) the husband must handle the finances (LaHaye), (3) "submission" is an inner attitude (Christenson), or (4) submission is required only if the husband "loves the wife" (Eph. 5:25) (Taylor). Some traditionalists allow women to serve as deacons (not usurping male authority), but none approve of women as senior pastors.

Generally speaking, the hermeneutical method of traditionalists tends to interpret most Scriptures literally. Concern for maintaining the authority of the Bible causes complementarians to be very concerned about cultural relativity. Christian feminists, on the other hand, contend that the cultural context of these difficult passages must be considered. To reproduce the first-century culture as the divine norm is to fail to distinguish the differences between biblical times and the world today.

Of primary importance to Christian feminists is the example of Christ. In stark contrast to the universal denigration of females in the first century, Jesus` attitude toward women was totally counter-cultural. Sweeping aside centuries of tradition and prejudice, Jesus` treatment of females was revolutionary. What did Christ do? He simply related to women in the same way he related to men, never regarding them as inferior in any way.

Four examples illustrate the contrast: (1) Jesus always recognized women as persons (Jn. 4:26); (2) Jesus rejected the double-standard (Jn. 8:4); (3) Jesus challenged degrading stereotypes (Lk. 10:38-42); and (4) Jesus affirmed the role of women as reliable witnesses (Jn.20:1-18). The apostle Paul caught Jesus` vision and declared, "there is no longer Jew or Greek. . . slave or free… male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:24).

The Debate About Ministry

A final area of debate among Christians about gender roles is over ministry. The most conservative Christians prohibit any type of ministerial service by females. Others allow women to serve as lay or associate ministers, as long as they are not ordained. Some groups make a sharp distinction between deacon service and pastoral ministry, believing the latter involves authority not intended for females. Although many evangelicals are taking a new look at this entire issue, the majority of conservative congregations resist ordaining a woman or calling a female as senior pastors.28

Let us begin by recognizing that females do occupy a variety of ministry positions-as pastors, chaplains (military, hospital, correctional), pastoral counselors, associate ministers (children, youth, education, music), and other clergy roles. In my denomination there are over 900 ordained females, but most are chaplains-less than twenty serve as senior pastors.29

Another observation: among conservative Christians a variety of opinions exist about women in ministry. A recent text presents four viewpoints: (1) traditional, (2) male leadership, (3) plural ministry, and (4) egalitarian.30 Another current book contains nine integrated essays which uphold the traditional view of women in ministry, based on an analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.31 In a 1995 publication, the well-respected Canadian theologian Stanley Grenz has expounded a biblical theology of women in the church, which reviewers claim is fair to both sides of the debate, but equalitarian in spirit.32

Although the phrase "women in ministry" includes several types of service and Christians hold a variety of opinions about all of these, two major areas occupy most of the debate: ordination of women and their service as a senior pastor.

The way ordination is practiced today receives mixed reviews from all sides. The New Testament churches certainly did not view ordination as we do. Most biblical scholars agree that in the early church every believer was a minister. Wheaton College theologian Gilbert Bilezikian affirmed, "The Great Commission is the only apostolic succession ordained by Christ, and it applies universally to all believers, including women, who were also called disciples (Acts 9:1-2, 36)."33

Many church leaders would argue that there is no scriptural basis for ordination-it is more a product of church tradition than biblical precedent. In the original Christian community, when the church recognized that a person possessed certain gifts necessary for a needed work, the congregation affirmed and "set apart" that person for the task by the laying on of hands (Acts 13:1-3).

Why do conservative churches ordain today? For recognition. A church body needs to officially recognize a person to perform certain functions of ministry. Most ministers seek ordination today to qualify for church positions and to be eligible for the benefits and tax advantages allowed by the government for the ordained.

In spite of the differences between the biblical practice and the modern procedure of ordination, traditionalists refuse to ordain women as ministers, mainly because they believe the Bible prohibits females from the office of pastor. Some may allow women to serve as associate ministers, but even in those cases ordination is forbidden because once ordained, a woman could occupy any pastoral office.

An exception to this norm are churches in the Wesleyan tradition who have always included female ministers: the Assemblies of God, the Church of the Nazarene, and denominations known as the Church of God. Typically, however, clergywomen in these churches serve as co-pastors with their husbands, or as evangelists.

As was true of other gender questions, Christian feminists contend the Scriptures do not prohibit females from serving as deacons or pastors. The key passage quoted by traditionalists, that the pastor should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2), must be interpreted in light of cultural options open to the biblical writers. Attitudes toward slavery and the status of women in the first century were singular; thus the biblical writers had only one option, to address slaves and women in this context.

What does the immediate future hold for women in ministry? Change will come slowly, if at all, for most churches. Although the tide of culture is on the side of feminism, most evangelical Christians are social conservatives.

Allowing women to serve as deacons will become more common, partly due to the fact that many Protestant churches were ordaining women to serve as deacons a century ago. In addition, many respected Christian leaders have made a strong biblical case for female deacons on the basis of function (servant role), although the "husband of one wife" phrase (1 Tim. 3:12) is a scriptural barrier for many traditionalists.

The acceptance of women as pastors will meet greater resistance, due to both conservative tradition and concern over biblical authority. The trends of culture, though never a valid reason for doctrinal change, will probably influence reform in the churches more than a restudy of biblical teachings.

Above all, Christians need to listen to the women in their churches. In 1992, a female student wrote this puzzle for the members of a Christian ethics class I was teaching: "What is my role as a woman who is a Christian? On one hand I hear, in order to be a woman of God you are to be quiet in church, never assume a leadership position where you might be in authority over a man, and etc. On the other hand I feel, What if I am the best qualified person to do the job? So what if there will be a man working under me! Should I be denied a position of leadership solely based on my gender? What if God gives me a message to share (that is assuming God does speak to women, of course)? Should I keep a word from the Lord to myself or tell my husband (if I am married) and let him speak for me? God gave me a voice and an agile mind. Why can`t I use it to serve Him? These attitudes make me feel as if I am a second class citizen, especially if I marry. Is it so wrong to want to use my talents/my gifts in the best way possible to serve God even if it means going against social and religious stereotypes? I think it is wrong to have a talent/gift and not be allowed to use it for the glory of God just because some silly custom might get broken in the process! Is this male insecurity or is this really God? This is where my puzzle is. How do I reconcile what I believe I should be as a woman with what I hear from Christian circles as to what I should be as a woman?"

Endnotes

1.A major portion of the content of this article is based upon research reflected in chapter 8, "Human Equality-Gender and Race," in the author`s text Walking in the Way: An Introduction to Christian Ethics (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Press, 1997).

2Baptist Standard, 16 June 1993, 3.

3Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 1.

4Ibid., 2.

5David Lyon, Sociology and the Human Image (Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1983), 167.

6Groothuis, 5.

7Andrew Sinclair, The Emancipation of the American Woman (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 354-355.

8James Davison Hunter and Helen V.L. Stehlin, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987), 90-91.

9Groothuis, 14. In 1963 Betty Friedan dubbed this trait the "feminine mystique."

10Brigitte Berger and Peter L. Berger, The War Over the Family: Capturing the Middle Ground (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 26, who note it is difficult to determine whether feminism caused or merely legitimized social changes already in motion.

11Berger and Berger, 28.

12Katherine Kersten, "How the Feminist Establishment Hurts Women," Christianity Today, 20 June 1994, 22.

13Margaret A. Farley, "Feminist Ethics," The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, eds. James Childress and John Macquarrie (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986), 229-231.

14Groothuis, 24.

15Recent works debating this issue include: Sheri Adams, What the Bible Really Says About Women (Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 1994); John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); Stanley J. Grenz, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995); Alvera Mickelsen, ed., Women, Authority & the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986).

16Cited in a news report by Wesley G. Pippert, Christianity Today, 4 May 1979, 48.

17Ruth A. Tucker, Women in the Maze (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 35-36. Tucker added that although the Danvers Statement affirmed the first couple were "equal before God as persons," a drafter of the statement explained that in authority relationships "it is absolutely appropriate to say that the man images God and that the woman does not."

18Morar M. Murray-Hayes, "Emancipation of Women." Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics, ed. R. K. Harrison (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 129-131.

19Barth contends that one cannot say "Man" without having to say male or female and also male and female, Church Dogmatics, III/2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 280.

20Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 24.

21John R. W. Stott, "Homosexual Marriage," Christianity Today, 22 November 1985, 21.

22Raymond C. Ortland, Jr., "Male-Female Equality and Male Headship," in Piper and Grudem, 102, 104.

23Tucker, 37-38.

24See chapter eight, "Human Equality-Gender and Race" in the author`s Walking in the Way: An Introduction to Christian Ethics (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997).

25Joe E. Trull, "Is the Head of the House at Home?" The Theological Educator, Fall 1996, 83-94.

26Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992).

27Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read The Bible For All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 68.

28The controversy dividing the SBC since the 1980s has often focused on scriptural inerrancy, particularly as it relates to biblical teachings concerning the role of women. The more conservative segments of the SBC generally support the traditionalist position, whereas the moderate segment more commonly accepts women as deacons and pastors.

29 Mark Winfield, "Baptist women gaining ground in ministry roles," Word and Way, 25 February 1993, 5. Ironically, the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board (the appointment agency) does not support the ordination of females, but because the U.S. government requires that chaplains be ordained, the Board "looks the other way" while some SBC church ordains the candidate!

30 Donnidell Clouse and Robert G. Clouse, Women in Ministry: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989).

31 Andreas J. Kostenberger, et. al., eds., Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995).

32 Stanley J. Grenz, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

33 Gilbert Bilezikian, "No Limits to Ministry," Discipleship Journal, September/October 1993, 71.