Thursday, June 19, 2008

Daniel Block on Husbands and Wives in Genesis

I find myself minutely distracted by a new book, Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. I don't really want to take the time to read it, but it's the kind of book I feel like I need to engage because it serves a complementarian agenda.

For example, Daniel Block of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes a chapter, "Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel." Then Andreas Köstenberger of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary summarizes his "take away" from Block in preparation for his chapter on "Marriage and Family in the New Testament." His summary reveals a clear complementarian agenda:

1. Genesis 1 indicates the ontological equality between men and women.
2. Genesis 2 indicates the differing role functionality of men and women, namely the subordination of the woman to the man.

Of course this schema raises all kinds of thoughts and comments in my mind.

First, this is simply the most acceptable fall back position for those who continue to resist the full new covenant functionality of women. A hundred years ago these same individuals would have likely dropped off number 1. That simply isn't acceptable today so they have accommodated the implications of the gospel just as much as they have to while remaining in the old covenant as much as they can get away with.

Let me be clear--these are godly and honorable men whom I respect. I believe their hearts are in the right place. But their position is simply the latest in a series of concessions to the increasing recognition of God's full empowerment of women in both identity and role. Everyone would now reject the position equivalent to theirs fifty years ago, when the Bible was used to keep women from working. Everyone would now reject the position equivalent to theirs a hundred years ago, when the Bible was used to keep women from voting. And soon Christians will reject out of hand their position that forbids women from certain roles of ministry and consigns them to an artificial functionality in the family.

I don't mind the angry protests these kinds of comments bring out. History doesn't care.

Secondly, this construction results from a harmonization of Genesis 1 and 2. If we go inductive, it is much more likely that these two chapters are two distinct narratives with two distinct representations of the male/female relationship. Chapter 1 makes no distinction between male and female in creation; chapter 2 does. These two accounts must be integrated, and the tactic of this book is only one way of doing so.

Thirdly, while I agree that Genesis 2 intrinsically places Adam in a position of superiority to Eve, Genesis 3--yet another story--considers subordination a consequence of Eve's sin. We thus find a tension on this issue within the narrative, one that must be resolved on a theological level, one that the text of the Bible itself does not resolve for us.

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy is only one voice on the appropriation of these narratives. There are others, including Galatians 3 and implicitly in other texts such as Acts 2. The kingdom trajectory gives us the key to prioritizing these contrasting presentations of the story--what is the truth that is being worked out as the kingdom of God approaches. From this perspective the argument of 1 Timothy, because it aligns itself with the old covenant, must be subordinated to the clear new covenant trajectory of Acts.

Although my comments here are only suggestive, they allude to the hard work of integration that is the task of the biblical theologian. It requires honest and deep engagement with the tensions and diversity of biblical texts due to their originally contextual and situational nature. Evangelical scholarship has a tendency to ignore such diversity and to harmonize it rather than resolve it.

But issues like these are too important for shallow engagement with the text or easy answers. The evangelical emperor is more dressed than he has ever been, but I still get embarrassed from time to time when he comes out in public.

6 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I understand the desire for the evangelical to come from a "Biblical" perspective, but isn't the argument on functional and structionalist grounds (norms)? How does an interactionist view a complementarian view of religion and science?

I don't believe that we are determined by our roles (at least in a "free society"), as you have pointed out, but they are defined as we interact with society at large. That is why there are always "problems" with "social planning and engineering". These societal structures are man-made for funcional purposes and are outcome based. This was what the "Rule of Faith" was about as far as marriage (the three "reasons why a person marries"). I don't believe that God's creation (structural view) can be understood so simplistically.
Although I haven't studied much in cultural anthropology, I do wonder how in the formation of the mind/child with the influence of culture and how that affects the child's peception of "world" (I think I understand how it affects "self-perception"). And is that perception/world so ingrained that it would be destructive to the personality of the child to "un-do"?
And what would be the "reasons" for supplanting that understanding? Then, we have a moral dilemma in what is required, that is IF we believe in an "ABSOLUTE" in culture.

Of course I am not suggesting that I don't believe that America's "ideals" are the greatest, certainly I do. But, when it comes to understanding how the values of "life", "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" is understood within a different cultural context, then I think I am in the dark.
Therefore, because I am in my own contexts and unable to "get out of it", I will probably "behave" in a way that makes the most sense to me. There are always "reasons" to our behavior, although we may not agree as to the "reasonableness" or the behavior itself. The individual is understood only in understanding their proper "context". And dysfunction is bred in dysfunctional environments. My question is what defines dysfunctionality? And at what point is a norm that determines behavior "become" abnormal or dysfunctional? There is tension, here, in holding together the "norms" that make society function in the best way and allowing individual "expression" in that society.

Creativity by definition is "abnormal" and I have been thinking along "what defines beauty" in art? Are there any "norms" in art? Some modern art is not "beautiful" to me, but does that mean it is not valuable to others? And for what reasons? I believe that the individual is a unique creation (innate
given-ness) and the brush strokes that make the individual "who he is" are the "painting" of the interaction he has with his enviornment. But, the individual is the one who does the painting, not the environment. The emvironment only gives the "tools".

Angie Van De Merwe said...

In light of the Anglican's meeting in Jerusalem and the call to "Biblical authority", It seems indeed there is a need for scholarly addressing of some of these issues. I read the statement and think that it is only a "warmed over' fundamentalism. Kudos, to you, Ken. You hold to an integrity to the text that the ill-informed do not understand.

Anonymous said...

Last year I heard Tom McCall present a paper on "Subordinationism in the Economic Trinity" and how that view is used to advocate the type of understanding you outline here. Obviously that is an entirely theological argument, but do you think the gentlemen you mention would hold something akin to that position?

Anonymous said...

I don't think that I agree with your reading of Genesis 2. Yes, the male is created first, but I am not sure that this means that the female is subordinate. The word translated "helper" in Genesis 2 is most often used as a description of the LORD who is Israel's "helper." This fact alone suggests a more dynamic relationship between the sexes than is commonly acknowledged.

Also, 2:4 - 4:26 serve as a literary unit in Genesis. I wholeheartedly agree that Genesis 3 views the "battle of the sexes" as a result of the Fall of humanity. But even 3:16 may be read incorrectly if it is not recognized that this passage is paralleled in the Cain/Abel story (compare 3:16 with 4:6-7).

Genesis 3 presents a world in which both sexes seek to dominate the other. Males tend to win such battles, but as I am sure you would agree, one of the results of Jesus' victory through his life, death, and resurrection is to make it possible for women and men to approximate (at least) the mutual relationships implicit in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25.

realmealministries.org/WordPress

Ken Schenck said...

Thanks for your insights on Genesis, Brian! Have you looked at Block's piece?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

One of the "insights" I got in Dr. Lennox's class, while observing the text, was that God commanded Cain to take care "that sin was croutching at the door". Because of my theological understanding at that time, I asked why God would command Cain "to not sin", as I had understood man to be totally depraved(sinning in thought, word, or deed every day) and redemption had not happened in real time, yet, and the "Holy Spirit" had not been given to man to "overcome" his "sinful nature"....etc...that was a eye-opener for me...But, of course theologians always "make sense" of those discepancies by "adding their rationale"...the Reformed understand that "jesus was slain before the foundations of the world" and therefore, the atonement was effectual for the "elect"....but then you get into the complexity of how God "chose". Did he choose certain men before the "fall" or after the "fall" ETC...It beomes reasonable but it is etnocentric. The Catholic understanding is that men are deprived, not depraved (I believe?).
Theological understanding is man's rationale "for God". And since the Reformation, the Bible (the text) has determined who God is in 'propostional form"...while the Catholic Church was to represent God to man....that was what the priesthood was all about...and in the Jewish system, as well...The priesthood should not be the only ones to be "like God", that is what man made in God's image is all about...which is the ethical. The Ethics course under Dr. Duane Thompson was why I changed my major to Religion and Philosophy.