A renowned Bible scholar, F.F. Bruce is well known for his work on why the New Testament can be trusted, as well as a member of the very conservative Plymouth Brethren (Open). He, especially surprising given his background, found the support of patriarchy to be incompatable with the thrust of the Scriptures. I read his article big-eyed, for many of the things he brings out are the exact things I have (painstakingly, ploddingly, sometimes even angrily) discovered in my own Scripture-searching.
Exegesis seeks to determine the meaning of the text in its primary setting. But when exegesis has done its work, our application of the text should avoid treating the New Testament as a book of rules. In applying the New Testament text to our situation, we need not treat it as the scribes of our Lord’s day treated the Old Testament. We should not turn what were meant as guiding lines for worshippers in one situation into laws binding for all time. (It is commonly recognised that the regulations regarding widows, later in 1 Tim., need not be carried out literally today, although their essential principles should continue to be observed.)
It is an ironical paradox when Paul, who was so concerned to free his converts from bondage of law, is treated as a law-giver for later generations. The freedom of the Spirit, which can be safeguarded by one set of guiding lines in a particular situation, may call for a different procedure in a new situation.
It is very naturally asked what criteria can be safely used to distinguish between those elements in the apostolic letters which are of local and temporary application and those which are of universal and permanent validity. The question is too big for a detailed discussion here. Where the writings of Paul are concerned, however, a reliable rule of thumb is suggested by his passionate emphasis on freedom—true freedom by contrast with spiritual bondage on the one hand and moral licence on the other.
Here it is: whatever in Paul’s teaching promotes true freedom is of universal and permanent validity; whatever seems to impose restrictions on true freedom has regard to local and temporary conditions. (For example, to go to another area, restrictions on Christian’s freedom in the matter of food are conditioned by the company in which he or she is at the time; and even those restrictions are manifestations of the overriding principle of always considering the well-being of others.)
An appeal to first principles in our application of the New Testament might demand the recognition that when the Spirit, in his sovereign good pleasure, bestows varying gifts on individual believers, these gifts are intended to be exercised for the well-being of the whole church. If he manifestly withheld the gifts of teaching or leadership from Christian women, then we should accept that as evidence of his will (1 Cor. 12:11).
But experience shows that he bestows these and other gifts, with ‘understanding regard’, on men and women alike-not on all women, of course, nor yet on all men. That being so, it is unsatisfactory to rest with a halfway house in this issue of women’s ministry, where they are allowed to pray and prophesy, but not to teach or lead.
For those of you interested, here is the entire article in full. And a hat tip to my anonymous friend who sent me these great links. You know who you are. 
By Way of Disclaimer: Again, I have not come to any sort of conclusion on patriarchy/complimentarianism vs. egalitarianism. I am just asking questions about things I have been taught (and have taught others), evaluating all things in accordance with Scripture…and finding some of my previously held patriarchal beliefs challenged. Highly challenged. This does not, for my patriarchal friends, mean that I am advocating female rebellion. Our Lord calls us all, men and women, to love and to honor, to esteem eachother as above ourselves, so it is clear that whatever side of the fence I end up landing on [er, someday, if I ever land, that is], I am called to respect and love my husband either way.
Posted by Susan on September 30, 2006 at 4:26 am
Hi!
Thanks for commenting on my blog. I hopped over here to see yours and you have some wonderful posts! I hope you dont mind that I added you to my blogroll.
My sister lives in Valdez, AK. by the way. : )
Posted by revolution on September 30, 2006 at 9:20 am
I read this article in full and liked it a lot.
I like this comment
“Our Lord calls us all, men and women, to love and to honor, to esteem eachother as above ourselves, so it is clear that whatever side of the fence I end up landing on [er, someday, if I ever land, that is], I am called to respect and love my husband either way.”
David and I were discussing the whole “egalitarian vs. compl/patr.” thing on the way to coffee on Thursday and one thing we were observing was that there are variants of each dynamic that are important to specify.
We are egalitarian but we are first Christians. I personally like to differentiate Christian egalitarianism from other forms because I think there are some stark differences. For one thing, there is an extreme side of egal. that is motivated primarily by extreme liberal feminism (please note, extreme liberal feminism. I call myself a feminist and I’m thankful for the movement as a whole but cannot side with some on the extreme left side) and it has a decidedly rebellious and bitter tone. In these instances, you generally will find that the dynamic is not actually equal, the woman is in power over everything. That’s not truly egalitarian, it’s a matriarchy.
In Christian Egalitarianism, it’s not about equality in power so much as it is about equality in submission. Instead of taking a wife-only submission approach, Christian Egal. takes a mutually submissive approach where both husband and wife are submissive to one another, both giving up their own selfishness and desire to “be right” and “be in charge” and placing God as the head of both and the whole. Together they determine appropriate “domains” within the family depending on individual strengths and the season the family is in (e.g. if the wife normally does the domestic stuff, the husband might do more domestic duties at a season when the wife is pursuing a college degree or a career). Then they each function fully within those determined domains working together for all things that are pertinent to the whole.
In our culture, we seem to be incapable of understanding the concept of interdependance. In so many instances, there is either dependance or indepedance of one or all members of the family. I personally feel that Christian Egal. really comes down to the family being fully and wholly interdependant.
And of course, all of this rolls over into ecclesiology as well. Whether or not a woman is allowed to hold a leadership position, preach to a “mixed” congregation, etc.
I know you know all of this but I thought I’d point out some of our observations since we are self defined egalitarians but often find ourselves apalled by the behavior of many who share that label….as I’m sure you are often apalled by the patriarchists and complimentarians and find yourself unable to idenfity yourself with their definition of that dynamic.
Posted by Keer on September 30, 2006 at 10:48 am
Whoa. This was huge for me:
“But when exegesis has done its work, our application of the text should avoid treating the New Testament as a book of rules. In applying the New Testament text to our situation, we need not treat it as the scribes of our Lord’s day treated the Old Testament. We should not turn what were meant as guiding lines for worshippers in one situation into laws binding for all time.”
I can start listing, right now, off the top of my head, SO MANY RULES that Christians have based on the NT. Some relating to women, some not. But all of them are rules, just like he said, and yes, they ARE treated the same way as the scribes treated the OT.
This is MAJOR for me.
Posted by Keer on September 30, 2006 at 11:04 am
Reading the full article now.
TOTALLY shaking much of how my Christianity has looked for so long.
This is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And he is so right.
Posted by Keer “Unplugged” » Blog Archive » Whoa, this is huge for me on September 30, 2006 at 11:39 am
[...] Just found Molly talking about an article by F.F. Bruce. [...]
Posted by ReneeM on September 30, 2006 at 2:09 pm
revolution,
I LOVED your point… that it is equality of submission, not equality of power. I have never thought a lot about this before “Molly”
– like that is a time frame in my life!! LOL Your definition and attitude is SO not threatening, and I like it!!
Posted by Kari on September 30, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Looking forward to reading this article in full with my husband (because he would be interested, I mean…)
But, just a friendly side-note…speaking as one who is in fellowship with one of the as-described “open” or “loose” assemblies…no one is a “member” of the Plymouth Brethren! As a group of like-minded believers in this way, we are very much non-denominational, believing that we all belong to only one church – the universal body of God consisting of all saints past, present, future. Other people have described us as PB…but no one is a “member” per se…It seems like it’s just a matter of semantics, but really it is a subtle, but very big difference in viewing and understanding the brethren — meaning all Believers!
Just thought I would throw that in for clarification…not that it adds to the conversation at all. I’ve just been stuck away from the internet all day with my in-laws, and desperate to talk…
Clicking over now to read the article so I might be able to actually speak on the topic at hand!
In Christ alone,
Kari
Posted by Marcia on September 30, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Actually, Kari, it does add to the conversation. I’m not really familiar with Plymouth Brethren, so I appreciate the clarification.
Molly–wow. I feel as though I, with you–although that may sound presumptuous– am throwing off a heavy, restrictive suit of armor and moving toward, well, something free.
Posted by molleth on September 30, 2006 at 7:24 pm
These same thoughts have been EXACTLY the ones that have shaken the very core of me…the focus not on men and women, though it has hit hard there…it is more just the way I look at the Scriptures in general, what I had thought God’s heart was, etc…
It started some months ago and it honestly has caused me to re-evaluate almost everything I think and why I think it… I am still in that process, I have to say (and don’t see coming “out” happening anytime soon, lol), but it has been one of the most FRIGHTENING things, if not THE Most Frightening Thing, I have ever done in my entire life… and yet one of the most God-ward things…and through it, I have met HIM in ways I did not know I could, and for that, I wouldn’t take back one terrible, shaking, fearfully sobbing moment.
There is nothing wrong with being broken, face down, crying out to know Him in truth. There is nothing wrong with that, ever.
Posted by Ellen on September 30, 2006 at 7:32 pm
I’m not sure that I’d lump “patriarchy” in with “complementarianism”.
I am very complementarian – but not patriarchal.
Posted by molleth on September 30, 2006 at 8:24 pm
I do agree that there are some huge differences between the two camps (between patriarchy and complimentarianism), so thank you for pointing that out. But in the essence, both *do* agree that women were designed to be ruled. The *how* of it is where they sharply divide.
Many egalitarian and complimentarian marriages look exactly alike, in fact…enough so that most patriarchs think that comp’s are out of God’s will (I’ve read some posts about the evils of the complimentarian camp, written BY patriarchy supporters–lol).
It ALL can get really funny, if you stay up late at night studying it too much… LOL…
Posted by revolution on October 1, 2006 at 10:28 am
right, the bottom line is that both Comp. and Patr. believe that the man is the authority in both marriage and the church by default of his gender and that women are, in some way, to be “lead” by the man. As Molly said, it’s in the extent and the how’s where they differ.
And as I specified, there are variants in each dynamic all across the spectrum.
Posted by Wayne Leman on October 6, 2006 at 10:38 am
I admire you for your struggle. Jesus never condemned anyone for struggling as they began to follow him. If he had, he might have had to dump each of his disciples, including the female ones (yes, he had many female disciples).
Oh, I agree, F.F. Bruce is well worth reading, a true scholar as well as a fellow struggler.
Keep the faith!
Posted by Kathryn on October 20, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I could really relate to this article. It describes exactly what I believe to be the true definition of Christian egalitarianism. If we have a real problem understanding interdependence, it may be because we have a long theological tradition in this country of “female-dependence” or patriarchal theology. For women to be free of it, they have had to declare their independence, break away. It is heartening to see all the former patriarchalists on this blog who are finding their way to Biblical egal. I made that journey, and I value that struggle.