The first half of the review commends the author’s attempt followed by a short critique (will appear on a different thread)
Fresh Light or Less Light? A Review Article of Andrew Bartlett’s 𝘔𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵
June 10, 2020 Sharon JamesShare:
Editor’s Note: The following book review appears in the Spring 2020 issue of Eikon.
Andrew Bartlett. Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2019.
Introduction
For the last forty years, the evangelical world has been divided on the issue of women in ministry. Andrew Bartlett laments this ‘needless schism’ (1), and aims to bridge the divide with a “fresh perspective” that will “prove to be a blessing to the warring houses and bring them closer together” (15).[1] He has worked as both a barrister and advocate (arguing for one side), and as a judge and international arbitrator (judging dispassionately between two sides). He has applied the latter approach to this controversy:
Someone new to my church asked me for recommendations for things to read on each side of the debate. Her reaction to what I sent her was: ‘But they are so partisan — isn’t there something more balanced which I could read?’ So I decided to have a go at writing something which would help her, and others like her. As I am not in church leadership, or in a seminary with a particular ethos, I was not committed to supporting a particular viewpoint. I was free to try to be impartial and see where I ended up.[2]
Bartlett set out to investigate the biblical evidence, engaging along the way with a selection of the (considerable body) of contemporary literature on the complementarian/egalitarian debate. He focused on the work of Wayne Grudem (representing complementarianism) and Phil Payne (representing egalitarianism). He commenced the project “from a position of uncertainty” (15), vis a vis his conclusions, although he seemed confident that with his legal training and experience in adjudication he would be able to move this intra-evangelical division towards resolution. The major arguments will be presented in the author’s own words, before we turn to a critical evaluation.
Summary
The introductory chapter summarises Bartlett’s evaluation of the current evangelical “state of play” regarding the biblical teaching about men and women:
The traditional interpretation of the Bible, to the effect that women are innately inferior to men, has rightly been rejected as being based more on patriarchal culture than on the actual text. Both egalitarians and complementarians now regard women and men as inherently equal and now affirm that women may be leaders in wider society. But complementarians insist on male leadership in the church and in marriage (16, emphasis mine).
He then outlines the interpretative principles he will adopt:
Faithful interpretation of the Bible gives Scripture priority over tradition, pays attention to culture, goes back to the source language in context, looks for coherence and takes a Christ-centred canonical approach; and it does this with spiritual openness and practical wisdom (16).[3]
Bartlett deals, firstly, with the question of male leadership in marriage (chapters 2-6). Present day complementarians do not argue for “female inferiority,” so, Bartlett concludes, “they rely on the detailed contents of particular texts” (Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19; 1 Peter 3:1–7; 1 Cor. 11:3) and “a hierarchical reading of Genesis 2-3” (17). He criticises their relative neglect of 1 Corinthians 7 (despite it containing the longest discussion of marriage in the New Testament). He therefore begins with an examination of this chapter, arguing:
According to Paul in verses 3–5, husband and wife have equal authority . . . [and as far as can be determined from the rest of the chapter] . . . Paul envisages complete equality of personal relations between men and women. If Paul believed in a hierarchical, unilateral authority of husband over wife, it appears inexplicable that he wrote these words (29-30, emphasis mine).
The next chapter examines Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5:
Does Paul teach in these letters that marriage is a hierarchical relationship in which the husband is in a position of unilateral authority over the wife? . . . Is the wife’s submission a one-way submission to a higher authority or does Paul envisage mutual submission of husbands and wives as in 1 Corinthians 7:3–5? Does Paul teach a complementarian view of marriage in which husbands and wives have differentiated responsibilities, or is his view fully egalitarian with no such distinction (31–32, emphasis mine)?
Bartlett concludes that the Colossians passage alone does not resolve these questions, so he offers a further chapter on Ephesians 5. He argues that the “head” metaphor refers to Christ as Saviour rather than Christ as Lord (67). Husbands are not called to rule their wives. There should be mutual submission between husbands and wives (and joint leadership in the home), but there is a measure of asymmetry in the relationship. Husbands are to lead in terms of willing self-sacrifice; wives are called to submit to their husbands, in order to imitate the humility of Christ.
Chapter 5 examines Genesis 1–3. Bartlett concludes that there is no explicit support here for an ongoing principle of male leadership or authority, and that complementarian arguments depend on inference. God created male and female as differentiated beings (Gen. 2), but this differentiation is not explicitly defined. The woman is to be the man’s “powerful ally.” The only explicit statement in the Bible about the “rule” of man over woman is in Genesis 3:16 (judgement as a consequence of the fall). New Testament teaching that Adam was the representative head of the human race (Bartlett maintains) does not infer “rule” or “authority” any more than a representative ambassador has governing “authority.” (Even if some of the complementarian inferences from Genesis 1–3 were correct, he argues, redemption carries the believer forward into new creation, not backwards to life before the fall). A final section briefly looks at Old Testament examples of female leaders (such as Deborah), and prophets (such as Huldah). The final chapter on marriage examines 1 Peter 3, finding there a call to mutual submission, with no mandate for the husband to exercise authority over his wife.
Bartlett concludes that he cannot fully accept the egalitarian position. There is asymmetry in the husband-wife relationship, mirroring the non-reversible relationship of Christ and the church. He cannot accept the complementarian position either, as this relationship is not one of “unilateral authority” (his phrase), rather the husband’s calling is to sacrificial service.
Bartlett turns, secondly, to the question of how men and women relate in the church (chapters 7–15). Beginning with 1 Corinthians 11:3–16,[4] he argues that kephale here has to do with “sources.” Men and women are interdependent, but in all they do they should honour God, who is the source of creation and redemption. When engaged in prayer and prophecy, neither men nor women should present themselves in a way that dishonours God’s creation purpose (man-woman marriage).
Paul says nothing in this chapter about male authority over women. Nor does he say anything about reserving some governing and teaching roles within the church to men (159).
Turning to 1 Corinthians 14. Bartlett argues that verses 34 and 35 are “in severe conflict with the surrounding context” (179). He concludes that they probably are not an authentic part of the text (204).
Finally, considering 1 Timothy 2, Bartlett argues that the prohibition of verse 12 has a strictly local application. Paul has nowhere rescinded the permission given to female prophecy in 1 Corinthians 11. In context, this chapter is not focussed on the public assembly of the church.
First Timothy 2 does not justify a general ban on teaching by women in the church, or on the exercise of authority by women in the church (286).
Rather, Bartlett argues that Paul is saying:
I am not permitting a woman false teacher with expensive and immodest dress, lacking decency and self-control, to teach and overpower a man: she is to be quiet and reverent and learn how to behave in accordance with the truth, in full submission to God (285).
Summing up this section: are women prohibited from leadership positions in the church? “No!” concludes Bartlett. Men and women are equally united with Christ. Qualifications for ministry are gift-based not gender-based (310, Rom.12:3–8; 1 Cor. 12:1–30; Eph. 4:11–13; 1 Peter 4:10–11). Even if Paul did consider that Genesis 2 included a creation principle of male leadership, then it would be inconsistent to apply that only in family and church (as, he claims, most complementarians do). It would have to apply across the whole of society.
A final chapter deals with broader themes: the paradox of equality and humility; creation and new creation; what it means to be male or female; our expectations of Scripture; the importance of unity, and obstacles to that unity.
Summing up, Bartlett writes:
After it became clear that the traditional view of women’s innate inferiority was out of step with Scripture, there began a reformation in the Christian understanding of what the Bible teaches about men and women. New interpretations have been advanced . . . Complementarian interpretations have not taken the reformation far enough, because they still retain unjustified restrictions on women’s ministry in the church, and some still depict marriage as a hierarchical relationship. Egalitarian interpretations of Christian marriage seem to have taken the reformation too far, since they deny any definite differentiation of responsibilities of husband and wife beyond the biological (338, emphasis mine).
