actually endorsing the status quo by embracing uncritically the power mechanisms which kept them in place. These sociologists exposed the biological essentialism on which many of the male-female roles were predicated. Sexuality had been biologically defined, and the analysis of social roles built on an assumed biological basis of behavior. Now it became evident that work or family roles were not simply correlated to our biology but related to power structures which operated through conventions, legal statutes, and educational expectations. Women did not spend most of their time in housework and child-care because they were hard-wired through chromosomes or hormones to find these pursuits satisfying and fulfilling, but because children needed to be cared for, homes needed to be cleaned, and the lot fell to them. Moreover, the structure of employment and the education system were constructed in such a way as to make it difficult for them to gain access to the sorts of jobs open to men.
So sociologists stopped writing about the sexual division of labor, and the concept of gender forced its way, self-consciously, into the vocabulary of the social sciences.3 Whereas "sex" related to what was biological, natural, predetermined, continuous, and the same in all cultures, "gender'' referred to what was cultural, socially constructed, assigned, bound up with expectations, and constantly changing. Being a biological male or female may be the same the world over. But being a man or a woman (or ''masculine'' or ''feminine'') is shaped by the prevailing culture, for that is where we learn the conventions and attitudes, behavior, and communication patterns which form gender identity. And cultures vary: ''feminine'' behavior in much of Africa, for example (women carrying huge loads on their heads and backs whilst their men remained unburdened), would be regarded as quite inappropriate in North America or Northern Europe. So, ''gender'' provided a concept more fluid and varied for understanding social interaction and institutions than the oppositional binary of ''sex.''
gender in theology
In traveling from the social sciences to theology, therefore, ''gender'' brings some radical challenges to older ways of thinking, challenges not always appreciated by those who annex the concept. It marks a departure from a single, fixed way of understanding relationships between men and women, and rejects essentialism. It implicitly confronts any hermeneutic model which smuggles a biological reductionism into the interpretation of biblical texts. It raises new questions in the areas of doctrine, liturgy, spirituality, ethics, and pastoralia. It recognizes the inescapable significance of the cultural context, and interrogates the interaction of gender in the way we understand and relate to God.
Evangelical theology has produced its own body of work in the area over the last quarter of a century, as it has increasingly been drawn into debate about gender. Yet there are enormous variations in how the debate has been perceived. At one end of the spectrum there has been a desire not to force the concept into some ghetto of "women's issues,'' but to investigate how gender engages with the full breadth of theological curricula. And whole symposia on gender have been dedicated to examining questions of Trinity, Christology, soteriology, personhood, or eschatology. Scholars have looked at theology and language, especially at the way in which gender has been read into the Godhead and reinforced in the understanding of the church through male images in doctrine and liturgy. There have been attempts to explore how one can present a non-gendered view of God which yet remains personal. There have also been studies on how reflections on the Trinity can help to understand the construction of gender identity. In some academic circles, evangelical theologians have entered into dialogue with feminist theology, being willing to examine the charges brought against them by women who have rejected the biblical canon on the grounds of its alleged irredeemable patriarchalism. Much writing has been sociologically aware and fruitful, offering a creative dynamic between faithfulness to evangelical orthodoxy and openness to theological exploration on God and gender. I shall be looking at the results of some of these initiatives later.
At the other end of the spectrum, however, and particularly amongst some evangelical writers in North America and Australia, the debate has become stuck within an obsession with male-female roles, reflecting a similar old essentialism to that which dominated the Modernist mind-set in the social sciences. This has been characteristic of the many articles and books defending what the authors call ''biblical manhood and womanhood,''4 which have demonstrated a marked reluctance to move beyond a fixed and static view of male and female, or to engage at all with the issues implicit in the concept of gender. Even the concept of ''role'' is handled as though it were unproblematic. From this perspective the debate has been presented largely as a contest between two opposing positions, in effect reflecting the very binary view of male and female which begs to be examined. Although it has been highly productive in terms of written output, much of the space and energy has been dedicated to repeating the same points to the same critics. Inevitably the result lacks the imaginative and creative engagement which subjects its own assumptions to examination and wrestles with bigger issues, and the arguments become predictable. Nevertheless, what has been useful for theology is that this debate has raised key questions in hermeneutics and language, and it is to these I now turn.
gender and the biblical text
One of the defining features of evangelical theology has been its commitment to the canon of Scripture, believing the Bible to be the inspired Word-revelation of God, through which God addresses us with truths of eternal significance. In the task of knowing God, the Bible is indispensable, as well as in the task of knowing ourselves. For the Bible tells the story of our humanity, our identity derived from our relationship with God; it unearths for us our meaning and value as human creatures, reveals to us something of the nature of our struggle with sin, and calls us into redemption through Jesus Christ. As both the shaper of a worldview, and as a moral and spiritual guide for personal and communal life, the Bible unites evangelicals and remains the key source of understanding for their faith.
Most evangelical theologians do not have a fundamentalist or absolutist view of the Bible, recognizing that God chose to give this Word, not as a series of timeless and infallible theological imperatives, but through human authors writing over thousands of years in an amazing diversity of literary genres. These human authors wrote in specific cultures and periods, and the cultural context is inevitably woven into the shape and structure of its content. So the Bible is both divine and human; it has eternal relevance and historical particularity; it embodies the unity of the Spirit of God in the diversity of human writings. Evangelical theologians generally agree that since God spoke an eternal Word through time-bound authors we read it to discern the intent of the Holy Spirit as expressed by those authors, and apply it today. This is of course a contested view, challenged by the postmodern deconstruction of the text, but evangelicals have always utilized a kind of deconstruction of their own. As Gordon Fee puts it, "Our task is to discover and hear that Word in terms of God's original intent and then hear that same Word again in our own historical setting, even when our particulars are quite different from those of the original setting.''5
Agreement amongst evangelicals as to the essential truth and unity of the Bible, does not, however, safeguard against disagreements which arise when we look at the actual text. We might disagree about what we believe to be the intent of the author, or how it should be applied today, which texts should have primacy in providing a more general framework of interpretation, or whether all texts have equal interpretative value. We might disagree about whether the cultural context of the text should be reproduced today (e.g., patriarchy) or about what differentiates a ''timeless truth'' from a "historical particular'' (male leadership). Hermeneutics involves choice, and in making decisions on what a particular text might mean, choice operates at a number of stages, some of which lie beyond the subject in question. All of this comes to a head on the issue of gender, and has produced sharp divisions with implications beyond exegetical concerns. For the text itself presents us with complex choices. This important point is not always acknowledged by some exegetes who argue that theirs is the only proper (that is ''unbiased'') interpretation. Nevertheless, if we are to understand the Bible at all, we need to recognize that we all come to it as fallible creatures making hermeneutical decisions under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The debate between evangelicals, predominantly in North America, over gender and textual interpretation, has become polarized between "complementarians'' and ''egalitarians,'' each claiming biblical justification for their position (''biblical manhood and womanhood'' versus ''biblical equality''). At one level the disagreement involves arguments over very specific verses, especially in the New Testament epistles; whether these verses allow or forbid women from exercising leadership in the church, whether they establish a universal principle of ''male headship'' or mutual submission, whether they are definitive for doctrine and practice today or are culturally nuanced. The contest often involves scrutinizing the specific identity and roles of people in the New Testament. For example, was Junia really an ''apostle'' and what did Paul mean when he used that term of her (Rom. 16)? What kind of authority did Priscilla have as Paul's co-worker and why was her ministry an acknowledged teaching one (didasko) (Acts 15) when women are told they may not teach (didasko) (1 Tim. 2)?6 Who was Phoebe and why does Paul commend her to the Romans in a way similar to the way he commends Timothy to the Corinthians (Rom. 16; 1 Cor. 4)? The debate also involves disputes over the translation of individual words, kephale, authentein, hypotassomai, exousia, didasko, where different writers cite usages which generally concur with their own interpretations (H. Scott Baldwin lists eighty-two examples of authenteo in ancient Greek literature with the aim of showing that they all involve the concept of authority7). The limitations of this kind of debate are recognized by many who are involved in it. Marianne Meye Thomson admits: ''Both those who favor women in ministry and those who oppose women in ministry can find suitable proof texts and suitable rationalizations to explain those texts. But if our discussion is ever to move beyond proof texting we must integrate those texts into a theology of ministry.''8 This has not won over the complementarians and the focus of much of their work remains that of proving the egalitarians wrong. Wayne Grudem, for example, has published a book of 850 pages which he devotes entirely to 118 points of disagreement he has with Christians for Biblical Equality.9
We need to learn from the biblical text how we should relate to God and each other, not least from the letters of Paul to the New Testament communities. But there are serious problems with both the methodology and the exegetical assumptions behind the urge to find the true characteristics of ''biblical manhood and womanhood'' and replicate these in our Christian communities today. To start with, it involves complex herme-neutical decisions about what to include or exclude, given the diversity of male and female roles in the Bible. Second, it is trying to get from the biblical text something which the text is not trying to give; for example, nowhere are there listed the necessary ingredients for gender identity -nothing is said about ''masculinity'' or ''femininity,'' but a great deal about preferring one another, and showing the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control) which should characterize every Christian. Third, even if there were such a list, we would need reasons for lifting it out of context and relocating it into our current setting; we would need to be convinced of its time-transcendent universality. Yet, any sociological awareness shows that the very cultural-laden nature of gender characteristics makes this extremely difficult. That is why Volf concludes: ''Biblical 'womanhood' and 'manhood' - if there are such things at all ... are not divinely sanctioned models but culturally situated examples; they are accounts of the successes and failures of men and women to live out the demands of God on their lives within specific
Disagreements on gender between evangelicals are thus not fundamentally about what may legitimately be included in the range of meanings of a Greek word, or whether 'ezer in Hebrew implies subordination,11 but about issues which lie beneath the exegetical process and enter the hermeneutic at the level of assumption. Crucial among these are ideas about the nature of human personhood. If we come to the text with what Alan Torrance calls a'' supposition of a reified fixity of innate, polarized sex roles with their attendant character-traits or personality definitions,"12 our interpretation of the text will be quite different from that of someone who approaches with a supposition of human mutuality. Similarly, assumptions about creation, the meaning of imago Dei, the characteristics of sin, the nature of redemption, and the shape of the redeemed community in Christ all feed into our exegetical understanding, as do ideas about power, hierarchy, and authority. An evangelical theology of gender can only be developed by unearthing presuppositions in all these areas, for we will read the text in the light (or blur) of them. At the most crucial level we need to be sure that the view of God which undergirds both theology and life in community is itself compatible with the triune God revealed to us in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word.
human personhood - persons in relationship
Theology has long wrestled with what it means to be a human person. Whatever the prevailing view in philosophy, theology has picked up and reflected some of that view in its own formulations. And the history of ideas has been shaped by concepts of the self as a substance, having a nature, an essence, according primacy to thought over activity, individual autonomy over relationality. Aristotle's link between biology and hierarchy, Boethius's definition of the person as an individual substance in a rational nature, and Descartes' mind-body dualism all provided the back-cloth against which theology has had to articulate its own view of the person.
Human identity is derived, given to us in relation to the Creator in whom we live and move and have our being. So to understand the nature of the person, theology wanted to know what constituted the imago dei, for once we knew that, we would better understand our humanness. Early theological anthropology, with its soul-body dualism, located the imago dei in the soul - the intellectual faculty of the person.13 The Reformation writers saw the divine image more relationally; Torrance asserts: ''Calvin always thinks of the imago in terms of a mirror.''14 Yet even in the nineteenth century there were those in the evangelical tradition who had not shaken off the link between the image of God and reason. Cited most often in this respect is Charles Hodge. Under the heading ''Man Created in the Image of God,'' Hodge suggests, ''God is a Spirit, the human soul is a spirit. The essential attributes of a spirit are reason, conscience and will. A spirit is a rational, moral, and therefore also, a free agent.'' He then goes on to claim scriptural authority for a dubious idea: "The Scriptures ... teach us that we are partakers of [God's] nature as a spiritual being, and that an essential element of that likeness to God in which man was originally created consists in our rational or spiritual nature.''15 (Hodge's implicit rationalism at this point helped shape his view of subordination within the Godhead, which his successor at Princeton, Benjamin B. Warfield, had later to refute.16)
Our understanding of gender is inevitably influenced by our ideas of human identity. If human beings are seen as individual, separate oppo-sites with natures, then it is easy to deduce that male humans have one kind of nature and females another, even to the extent that "[t]he image of God is in man directly, but in woman indirectly.''17 This polarized view of gender identity indeed has its roots within the dualisms of Greek, medieval and Enlightenment thinking, with "reason'' identified with maleness, and "body'' or "emotion'' with femaleness. So wherever "reason'' has been allowed to define the essential kernel of humanness, it inevitably reinforces inequality and buttresses the idea of the male as the natural bridge between humankind and God, and the locus for authority and decision making.
What has been striking over the last half century is the way evangelical theology has become both wary and weary of this old dualistic way of thinking about the person. The influences of both Martin Buber and Jurgen Moltmann acted as a catalyst in the shift away from the idea that "everyone is a self-possessing, self-disposing centre of action which sets itself apart from other persons.''18 Buber's notion of the "I"-"Thou" relation took the focus off the person as individualistic. The location of our humanness in some "nature'' or "rational essence'' began to give way to an understanding of personhood which is relational, where interdependence marks our identity. Rather than posit the "separateness'' bequeathed by the Enlightenment or the angst of the existentialists, it gave a different answer to some of the problems of our existence; the reason why isolation or alienation is so debilitating is not because it is the reality of our human predicament, but because it is the very denial of who we are. Since we are created in relation to God, to each other and to the rest of creation, relationships are not extrinsic to our being, but constitutive of it. This means "without the social relation there can be no personality.''19 To exist at all is to exist in relation to others. To be and to be in relationship are the same thing,20 for we are persons-in-relationship.
This recovery of human identity as relational rather than some substance with an essence or nature changes the focus of the gender debate.
It mounts yet another challenge to the assumptions undergirding the attempt to find some definitive biblical gender characteristics. For it does not presume that the defining characteristic of the man-woman polarity is difference, reflected at the very center of our spiritual being; it does not see men and women as having distinct natures, brought together under the principle of complementarity. It does not posit some hierarchy of relationship, or call upon an authority structure within which men and women live with separate and distinct roles of rule and submission. It holds that the reifying of human nature or essence, and its distillation into the polarized concepts of ''manhood'' and ''womanhood,'' are fundamentally flawed. Ontologically, our very identity lies in who we are in relationship.
the relational trinity
This rethinking of the person owes much to the revival of Trinitarian theology which has provided the context for our human anthropology to be reshaped. The Trinity presents us with God, Father, Son, and Spirit, as three persons in the full analogical sense of the term, distinct from each other, centers of love, truth, and will, but in an eternal relationship of union. It is an understanding which has been part of Christian theology from the beginning, yet relevant in new ways for each time and era. It can now be seen to have significant implications in the search for human personhood in our postmodern condition; Stanley Grenz even goes so far as to suggest that its retrieval has enabled us to develop a fully theological anthropology to claim back what had been abdicated to the human sciences.2i As Grenz also points out, the renewal of Trinitarian theology has not occurred simply amongst scholars of the Cappadocians. It has swept through evangelical, Catholic, reformed, liberation, charismatic, and feminist circles. Whatever the disagreements, and many remain, there is now widespread agreement that the concept of ''person'' has more to do with relationality than substantiality, and with community than abstracted individualism.
The union of the Trinity is seen as a union of being, where the personal identity of each member of the Trinity reflects the indwelling of the other persons in them. There is no oppositional separation; the identity of one cannot be thought without the other: ''the Father is the Father in no other way but in the dynamism of his relationship to the Son and the Spirit.''22 This does not, however, collapse the identity of the Father into that of the Son or Spirit. If that is what was meant by identity-in-relationship, then ultimately all persons would disappear into a common undifferentiated nature. But as James Houston explains, the members of the Trinity are '' always particularized. The Father is always the Father, and the Son is always the Son, and the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son.''23 Openness to '' the presence of other in the self''24 is quite different from the obliteration of the self. For Moltmann, the example of the Trinity reminds us that persons must not be dissolved into relations. Though persons are interdependent and identity is shaped in relationship, there is still a need to differentiate between ''person'' and "relation." We must see them in a reciprocal relationship: '' there are no persons without relations; but there are no relations without persons.''25
This helps to unlock the issues of our gender interrelatedness. It means that the identity of one gender cannot be thought without' the other. Men cannot be defined simply as what women are not'; women cannot be defined simply as 'what men are not.'''26 Instead each, in its own way, already contains the other. The identity of each grows out of connectedness. It is Paul's picture in 1 Corinthians 11 where woman is '' from'' man, and man is through'' woman. But we retain our particularity. The identity of the woman is not to be absorbed into that of the man, as happens in patriarchal contexts. Nor is the one subordinated to the other.
Made in the image of the Trinity, our human relatedness is given its real goal and direction as persons-in-communion. In his much-used analogy of the body, St. Paul pictures women and men in Christ as intrinsically and organically connected as members together, our identity disclosed as part of the body, sharing, even suffering, together as pain affects us all.27 This is the real biblical vision for our gendered humanness. Alan Torrance says,'' It is only when we operate with an ontology of communion that we are liberated from the monist/dualist dilemma, for dynamic and relational ways of conceiving of selfhood.''28 This ontology does not negate difference, individuation, or particularity. It is neither an androgynous vision, nor one of fusion into others. We remain personal and sexed bodies. But it does give us room to breathe in communion as women and men, removing the crippling stereotypes of seeing the other as the ''opposite'' sex and experiencing our gendered selves through connectedness. It also places our identity where it belongs, in our relationship with each other.
subordination in the trinity?
Not all evangelical writers have seen in the Trinity the vision for gender interrelatedness and equality. There are those who have insisted that there is eternal subordination within the Trinity - that of the Son to the Father - on which they base the rationale for the subordination of women to men. Some have argued that the eternal subordination of the Son is ontological, embedded in the very being of the triune God,29 others that it is functional - related to the roles within the Trinity. These writers insist that just as God the Son can be eternally subordinate to the Father in function or role, whilst equal in Being, so women can be permanently subordinate to men in role, but retain ''equality.'' Since this latter view is unknown in church history, and seems newly devised over the last few decades by those who have a strong view of male authority, it sounds to Kevin Giles like ''an attempt to make an acceptable-sounding case for the permanent subordination of women.''30
Christians have long understood that in his incarnate life Jesus was subject to the Father. The gospels teach it and the epistle writers affirm it. Jesus prayed to the Father, spoke of obedience to the Father, and did the will of the Father. But Paul also says (Phil. 2:5-11) that the Son had equality with the Father before he voluntarily emptied himself to become a servant and die on the cross for our salvation, and that afterwards he was exalted as Lord. Christ's submission to the Father was, like his humanity, part of his earthly life.
The idea of subordination in the Godhead (and in human relations) rests on a view of power and authority which is radically challenged by the New Testament, for it is one of autocracy and command, not of mutual self-giving. This is extrinsic, not intrinsic, to the gospel and is antagonistic to any notion of equality. Yet, throughout its history the church has held that the members of the triune God are co-equal, one in being, authority, divinity, power, and majesty. No case can be made, either, for splitting the role of God, the Father or Son, from God's Being. Christ forgives, saves, judges, reigns - he fulfills the ''role'' of God because he is God.
The eternal subordinationist view has reappeared as heresy from Arius onwards. But Athanasius (296-373) ''vanquished subordinationism''31 and cogently articulated the Trinitarian doctrine which has been held by the church, its creeds, and councils through the centuries as key to the Christian faith.32 It would be a tragedy for evangelical theology if historic Trinitarian orthodoxy were hijacked and Christ eternally emptied of his co-equality with God so that the hierarchy of men over women could be maintained.
the gender of god?
The revival of Trinitarian theology does not resolve the question of the gender of God. Feminist theologians insist that to describe God as ''Father''
and "Son'' inevitably reinforces a sense of maleness, especially when reinforced by so many other masculine images. Even if one attributes "feminine attributes'' to the Holy Spirit, that still leaves a two-thirds male Godhead! Feminist alternatives have variously re-presented God as androgynous, the community of women, wind or power, Sophia,33 the Verb,34 or as the Primal Matrix or great womb.35 Not attracted by any of these reformulations, and resisting the plea to "assert the femininity of God in order to connect with women'' on the grounds that neither femininity nor masculinity has any concrete content in the Godhead,36 evangelical theology has responded in a number of other ways. The first is to argue that, given the history of linguistic usage, along with the patriarchal culture of Israel, the predominance of male terms and masculine imagery for God is unremarkable. More surprising are the many feminine images which occur in the Scriptures, and warrant attention.37 The second is to recognize that we speak of God in language which is a human and social construction. We use gendered metaphors for God, not because God is male and/or female, but because God is personal and we have no other language to use for persons. The third is to deny that gendered terms for God imply anything about the masculinity of God. Sexual distinctions are what that God has breathed into our temporal world and do not define the Godhead. Fourth is to reject the idea that God offers us models of masculinity which should direct human (male) action, including actions toward women. "For God to be the model of masculinity one must first project maleness on to God and then use the projection to legitimize certain allegedly specifically male characteristics and activities.''38 In this respect, even God's fatherhood is not a model for human fathering, for in the creaturely realm, fathers are male.
James Torrance is instructive: ''In theology, we listen to and seek to interpret God's self-interpretation to us in Christ (John 1.12) and do not simply project on to God, for example, our preconceived images of 'father,' 'son,' 'begetting,' and 'generating' derived from our 'experience' in patriarchal, hierarchical, male-dominated culture (Matthew 23. 9-11).''39 And in seeking to interpret God's ''self-interpretation'' we cannot then focus on Christ's maleness, any more than on his Jewishness, his trade as a carpenter, or any other temporal human characteristics which Jesus possessed. The focus has to be on what Christ discloses about the reality of God, that God is creative, powerful, wise, interpersonal, sacrificial, forgiving, and redeeming Love, who calls us into reconciliation and communion. If language about God does not ultimately point away from gender and to the fundamental truth of divine love, then we have overwhelmingly missed the point.
It is when this love becomes the focus that, paradoxically, we can most fully appreciate the significance of Jesus' gendered life. For, as a male rabbi in a patriarchal culture he points over and over again beyond that culture to a radical new vision for women and men.40 In his life, teaching, relationships, encounters, and even language Jesus cuts through patriarchy. Women's daily lives are reflected in his parables: baking bread, sweeping rooms, looking for lost coins. He affirms women throughout the gospels: the menstruating woman who breaks Jewish hygiene laws to touch him, the prostitute who pours perfume over his feet, Mary who listens and learns instead of doing housework, the Syro-Phoenecian woman who argues about her own inclusion in his ministry, the much-married Samaritan woman at the well who discovers he is the Messiah. It is women who support him financially, women who stay with him in his last agonizing moments on the Cross, women who come to anoint his body, and to women he gives the message of resurrection.
The evangelical theology which comes to the concept of gender with openness to the Word of the Trinity and the Spirit of God recovers nuggets of faith and affirms the mutuality and reciprocal gifting of the people of God. And when the church lives out that theology, captured by the radical vision of a new humanity, we see again in our own era the first fruits of a redeemed community.
Beck, James R., and Craig L. Blomberg (eds.). Two Views on Women in Ministry.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. Campbell, Douglas (ed.). Gospel and Gender: A Trinitarian Engagement with Being Male and Female in Christ. Studies in Theology and Sexuality. London: T.&T. Clark, 2003. Giles, Kevin. The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the
Contemporary Gender Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Graham, Elaine. Making the Difference: Gender, Personhood and Theology. London: Mowbray, 1995.
Grudem, Wayne. Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of 118
Disputed Questions. Leicester: InterVarsity, 2005. Mickelson, Alvera (ed.). Women, Authority and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986.
Pierce, Ronald W., and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (eds.). Discovering Biblical
Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Leicester: InterVarsity, 2004. Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem (eds.). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:
A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991. Storkey, Elaine. Origins of Difference: The Gender Debate Revisited. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 200i. Sumner, Sarah. Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003.
174 Elaine Storkey Notes
1. Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1955).
2. See, e.g., Ruth Nanda Ashen (ed.), The Family: Its Function and Destiny (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949); Robert Flinell, Robert McGinnis, and Herbert R. Barringer, Selected Studies in Marriage and the Family (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962); F. Ivan Nye and Felix M. Berado, The Family, its Structure and Interaction (New York: Macmillan, 1973).
3. Robert J. Stoller, Sex and Gender (New York: Science House, 1968).
4. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (eds.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, i99i).
5. Gordon D. Fee, '' Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate,'' in Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (eds.), Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy (Leicester: InterVarsity, 2004).
6. Thomas Schreiner, Women in Ministry,'' in James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg (eds.), Two Views of Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001); Michael Burer and Daniel B. Wallace, "Was Junia Really an Apostle? An Examination of Romans 16:7,'' NTS 47 (2001): 76-91; Linda L. Bellville, Women Leaders in the Bible,'' in Pierce and Groothuis (eds.), Discovering Biblical Equality, pp. 110-25; see also Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer not a Woman: Rethinking i Timothy 2 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992).
7. H. Scott Baldwin,'' A Difficult Word: Authenteo in i Timothy 2:12,'' in Andreas J. Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (eds.), Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of I Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, i995), pp. 65-80.
8. Marianne Meye Thompson, Response to Richard Longenecker,'' in Alvera Mickelson (ed.), Women, Authority and the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, i986), p. 94.
9. Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: an Analysis of 118 Disputed Questions (Leicester: InterVarsity, 2005).
10. Miroslav Volf, The Trinity and Gender Identity,'' in Douglas A. Campbell (ed.), Gospel and Gender: A Trinitarian Engagement with Being Male and Female in Christ (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003), p. 170.
11. See a very useful discussion of'ezer in Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 200i), p. 276.
12. Alan Torrance, Personhood and Particularity,'' in Campbell (ed.), Gospel and Gender, p. 139.
13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia.76.1.
14. T. F. Torrance, Calvin's Doctrine of Man (London: Lutterworth, 1949).
15. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), vol. ii, pp. 96-97.
16. Benjamin B. Warfield, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,'' in Biblical Foundations (London: Tyndale, i958).
17. Roger Beckwith, ''The Bearing of Holy Scripture,'' in Peter Moore (ed.), Man, Woman and Priesthood (London: SPCK, 1978), p. 57.
18. Jiirgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981), p. 145.
20. See Elaine Graham, Making the Difference: Gender, Personhood and Theology (London: Mowbray, 1995), p. 38.
21. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self, p. 16.
23. Aram Haroutunian, ''No-one Closer: A Conversation with James Houston,'' Mars Hill Review 6 (Fall 1996): 58 (www.leaderu.com/marshill/).
24. Volf, ''The Trinity and Gender Identity,'' p. 166.
25. Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, p. 172. See also Miroslav Volf's analysis of Moltmann in ''The Trinity and Gender Identity,'' pp. 167-69.
26. Volf, ''The Trinity and Gender Identity,'' p. 174.
28. Alan Torrance, ''Personhood and Particularity,'' p. 149.
29. By ''ontological'' I mean subordination in ''essence or being'' as in the 1999 Sydney Anglican Diocesan Doctrine Commission report, ''The Doctrine of the Trinity and its Bearing on the Relationship of Men and Women,'' which refers to the ''differences of being'' (para. 25) within the Godhead and state that the subordination of the Spirit and Son ''belongs to the very persons themselves in their eternal natures'' (para. 33). The document is printed as an appendix in Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2002).
30. Kevin Giles, ''The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women,'' in Piper and Grudem (eds.), Discovering Biblical Equality, p. 338. Giles cites the debate where the Son's role subordination was first used to support the role subordination of women. See also Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism.
31. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), vol. I, p. 275. Quoted by Giles, ''The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women,'' p. 340.
32. Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism; Thomas Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991).
33. See Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Jesus, Mirian's Child, Sophia's Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology (London: SCM, 1994).
34. Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father (Boston: Beacon, 1982).
35. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Towards a Feminist Theology (London: SCM, 1983), p. 45.
36. Volf, ''The Trinity and Gender Identity,'' p. 141.
37. Exod. 19:4; Deut. 32:18; Job 38:28-39; Ps. 22:9-10; 131:2; Prov. 1:20-21; 4:5-9; 8:1-11; 9:1-6; Isa. 42:14; 49:14-15; 46:3; 66:13; and Hos. 13:8 are amongst the most oft-quoted in the Old Testament.
38. Volf, ''The Trinity and Gender Identity,'' p. 159.
39. James B. Torrance, ''The Doctrine of the Trinity in Our Contemporary Situation,'' in Alasdair I. C. Heron (ed.), The Forgotten Trinity (London: BCC/ CCBI Inter-Church House, 1989), p. 5.
40. Aida Besancon Spencer, ''Jesus' Treatment of Women in the Gospels,'' in Piper and Grudem (eds.), Discovering Biblical Equality, pp. 126-42, is one of the latest in a large number of studies. See also Alan Storkey, Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005).
Was this article helpful?