I have been staying away from posting on Twitter for the last two weeks+, and I plan on keeping it that way; but I have also kept my account open in order to stream my blog posts through for greater exposure. So, I still scan the feeds of Twitter, and these last few days have been on 
fire. John MacArthur (or JMac) has been at the center of the fire’s storm. It has to do with some recent comments he has made, at a conference he was participating at, with reference to the Southern Baptist bible teacher, Beth Moore. She has been causing a stir herself on Twitter lately. It seems, to me, that she has come to be more controversial in the wake of the #metoo movement, and how that impacted the SBC in general (think of the controversy surrounding the now ousted Paige Patterson). She has become outspoken in favor of a woman’s capacity to be a pastor, and then she has also been speaking to the issues surrounding so called ‘wokeness,’ and its relationship to social justice and racism. She has received no small amount of pushback from many of the “complementarians” within the SBC, and without; one of those pushing back at her, is none other than JMac&co. At this conference, JMac was involved in a panel discussion that was being hosted by Wretched Radio’s, Todd Friel. Friel was doing a word association exercise with the panelists; when he said the name “Beth Moore,” JMac’s response was “Go home!” He expanded on what he meant by that by appealing to the classical reference of so-called complementarians that: women should not hold the office of pastor, elder, bishop in the local or universal church. Naturally this was going to cause the expected reaction from the progressive Christians who are on the other extreme of things; and it did, all over the Twitterverse.
I grew up as a conservative evangelical Christian, like many of you (like Beth Moore in fact). Many of my ilk have become progressive, or at least lean heavily in that direction; mostly, in my estimation, in an over-correction away from what they perceive to be the hyper-Fundamentalist upbringing they experienced. It is clear that the Fundamentalist sub-culture is rife with all sorts of unhealthy and folkloric sorts of doctrines that have been elevated to the level of preambles of the Christian faith. Ironically, progressives haven’t really left the Fundamentalist mode, it’s just that they have found different cultural referents to be Fundamentalist about. That said, my question is this: what is the biblically exegetical case for a woman to hold the office of pastor or bishop? This is a loaded question because it asks the potential interlocutor to be self-aware and honest enough to lay out what their broader biblical hermeneutic entails. Typically, if in the affirmative for ‘female pastors,’ the exegete must adopt the ‘cultural hermeneutic,’ and relegate the New Testament’s ostensible teaching on women pastors, or their inability to hold such office, to the sitz im laben of the Graeco-Roman Second Temple Judaic context within which the NT was authored. In other words, it requires that this sort of interpreter maintain that what the Apostle Paul taught, for example, in regard to the inability for females to hold pastoral authority over males, was that Paul only wrote this from within his pre-critical patriarchal context. If this is the case, so these adherents might argue, Paul’s teaching was only pertinent and particular to his own context thus alleviating the 21st century Christian from having to slavishly follow in these sorts of patriarchal footsteps. They would need to marginalize Paul’s particular teaching by periodizing it, and in so doing take the ‘principles’ of pastoral leadership that Paul was proposing, but not take his prima facie male referent as normative or globally binding for all Christians of all times. I think this represents a fair representation of the sort of hermeneutic that those in favor of female pastorship must advocate for and from.
In my view, to appeal to the ‘cultural hermeneutic’ in this way, in the way that opens the door for female pastors, puts its proponent on a slippery slope. In other words, and the proof of this is in many of the flavors of pudding out there, these proponents have now opened the door for LGBTQI+ lifestyles as viable and coherent with the New Testament teaching as well. If Paul’s (or any NT author’s) teaching on anything was so culturally bounded, it follows that his ostensible teaching (and against) homosexuality is equally marginal and not pertinent to us ‘more advanced’ and critical exegetes of the 21st century. The hermeneutic required for being in the affirmative for female pastors, is the same hermeneutic the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer exegete can appeal to as well; and progressives like the late Rachel Held Evans, and the current Jen Hatmaker, Sarah Bessey, Jeffrey Chu et al all understand this and take it to heart. The people I don’t get are those who maintain that female pastors are a viable option, while at the same time rejecting the viability for the ‘Christian’ homosexual interpretation of Holy Scripture. To me these folks are either really confused, very naïve, or disingenuous.
As far as JMac’s comments directed at Beth Moore, I mean if you have followed him for any amount of time you will realize that this is just the normal drivel that comes from that side of the aisle. I don’t disagree with him in regard to female pastors, but his tone and his legalism in regard to many other significant theological issues are genuinely troubling indeed; and I have gone on record with his two ‘unders,’ Phil Johnson and Mike Riccardi, the other panelists on stage with JMac, over the years (you can google search that record). I actually think, though, that Beth Moore is just as much of an attention hound as is JMac in his own way; I have never been a fan of hers. Even so, there is still a serious exegetical discussion to be had in regard to the hermeneutic that gives us female pastors, or doesn’t. In spite of JMac’s usual antics, he does raise the need, once again, for a real discussion to take place in regard to female pastors; a discussion that actually gets past appeal to ‘my peoples,’ and one that is grounded in a critical exegesis of the New Testament teaching.
John MacArthur has also said and written abundantly in support of young earth creationism, which tells me a lot about his rigid fundamentalist mindset.
Paul, Yeah, JMac has lots of problems! Including his Lordship Salvation Calvinism. I know some YEC people who aren’t woodenly Fundy like JMac.
Bobby…have you read T.F.Torrance on The Ministry of women?
Don, yes; years ago. In fact I have Kimel’s edited volume that it is in sitting on my shelf. I don’t agree w/ TFT on everything :).
Bobby…I found Torrances arguments persuasive. I would love to see your response to Torrance.
Okay. I’ll take your dare at some point 😉
Thanks Bobby…I will look forward to your to your response.
The arguments I’ve seen for the egalitarian position coming from people who are not LGBTQ affirming all start with Genesis 1 and 2 so I’m not so sure if their argument can be reduced to culture. Also, from what I noticed, the arguments made from Genesis 1 and 2 are still operating with the assumption that the text teaches gender complementarity, they just don’t think that this complementarity involves headship and subordination. So I’m not so sure if you can bring in a slippery slope argument here.
Ivan, then you haven’t seen the arguments. They deal with the NT passages that explicitly state that homosexuality is a sin in exactly the way I describe. I didn’t make that up.
Ivan, I’ve sat in my advanced exegesis class in seminary years ago working through the egalitarian arguments that start in the NT; they must, even when engaging or redressing Gen 2 and 3 (not 1) through the NT fall/recreation matrix that arises from resurrection.
I have read the both the arguments for women’s ordination and the arguments for homosexuality not being a sin myself so I know how they argue.
Just as a question, considering that the arguments that the Bible doesn’t endorse slavery rely on a similar appeal to the differences between slavery in the ancient world and slavery in the American South and the fact that Paul wasn’t in a position to straight up advocate for the abolition of slavery, how is it that you don’t see those arguments regarding slavery as creating a similar slippery slope?
LGBTQ has a lot of problem. They cannot afford to go against the teachings of the scriptures concerning genders which is only confined into 2 category i.e.: True male and True Female. God is not on their side even if they will seek legalization of their claims.
Female pastors? I have not read any single female Pastors in Scriptures.
Ivan,
Demonstrate to me that you understand the hermeneutic that proponents use for female pastors and then for the separate issue for the viability of LGBTQI+ interpretation of the text, then I will respond to your example of slavery in the NT. But you haven’t demonstrated thus far, in fact the opposite, that you understand the texts that homosexual Christians appeal to in order to argue their position vis-à-vis the OT (or how they do that); similarly you haven’t done that with reference to those in favor of female ordination. So far you’ve said that they start with Gen 1 and 2, which I’ve never seen them do as Christian exegetes. Typically they start with the locus classicus texts found in Eph 5, I Timothy, I Corinthians, and Galatians and work from there (and then use NT narrative texts to anecdotally illustrate their point about female pastors). And egalitarians, in the main, make an eschatological argument w/ reference to Genesis 3 and the impact the fall had on the male-female relation; they re-iterate it under the conditions of that they take to obtain by way of the eschatos and its impingement upon the new creation reality. But that is actually a different point that I am making my post by way of principle.
jtleosala,
I agree. But of course there are arguments to make and deal with. I have only broached things off the top in my blog post here. There are substantial arguments to make though, and ones that I contend those in favor of female ordination and vice versa, those in favor of homosexual Christians, cannot defeat (only if they engage in a sort of reader response reading of the text of Holy Scripture).
Bobby, it seems that I did not make it clear enough, but I do not believe that the Scriptures permit homosexuality period so I am not LGBTQ affirming. I have read the arguments though. My main issue is that they are unable to argue against gender complementarity in Genesis 1 and 2.
As for Genesis 1 and 2, the arguments I’ve read (Ronald Pierce’s lectures at Biola, William Witt’s series of chapter length articles on his blog) do start with demonstrating that Genesis 1 and 2 show that male and female are created equal without subordination of one to the other. As you yourself point out, they see subordination as a curse of the Fall and Christ’s redemption as overturning that curse and beginning to restore things to how they were before the Fall. They do however also see Genesis 1 and 2 as teaching the complementarity of man and woman hence why they don’t see redemption as allowing for homosexuality.
It is based on that they argue that Paul is not speaking of the order of creation nor of women’s inherent gullibility but of the women not being sufficiently educated in Scripture.
I am realizing now that this is a form of cultural hermeneutics but it seems to me one that is conditioned by Genesis 1 and 2 as opposed to the one for homosexuality, which is conditioned by abstract principles not informed by Scripture. I also can’t see how this is any different from how we approach slavery or head coverings (and yes I’m aware of the differences between slavery in the ancient world and the American South and Paul’s own attitude, I also don’t think Paul regarded subordination of women to men as a creational principle).
But this is the whole point of the post, Ivan: I am not rejecting actual cultural context, but embedded in those, in the instances say of sexuality and ordered functions vis a vis the sexes, are communicated what I take to be creational/recreational norms. So, the slavery and head covering etc are genuine cases of cultural particularities that have pedagogical value, but only as those are translated or recontextualized into our context insofar as we can or cannot identify parallel norms.