@Preston Sprinkle at 54:50 when you said this here about savior status possibly giving someone inherit authority - what immediately popped into my head was Genesis 2. The woman, the Ezer helper. The man is alone and cannot be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, ruling over the fish of the sea and the birds in the sky and over all the earth without her. She is in many ways a type messiah/savior/rescuer/helper. Without her there is no family, no multiplication, no fruitfulness which the rule of humanity was to be built upon. She basically is the bridge to his destiny and purpose. The vessel of God’s provision for the man in a state of lack. The first time something was labeled “not good”. Yet we would never say this makes her the one with power over him…so I dunno
At 1:14 Andrew states that the Complementarian position does not hold up. It is based on proof texts. Other long-accepted doctrines are just as weak with eternal conscious torment being a key example.
Not finished yet but starting with obfuscation of 1 Cor 7 seems like the litigator Bartlett coming out more than the impartiality of an adjudicator. Here's the passage for context: "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." NIV I'm not sure I can see that he's even trying to be impartial given the language Andrew uses such as describing this passage as 'about decision making' as opposed to fidelity and chastity being the primary subject at hand(for all sorts of people in different contexts throughout the chapter) as well as referring to the authority over each spouse mentioned in generic rather than bodily terms. Where prayer in the passage is mentioned as merely an exception to regular sexual intimacy Bartlett alleges the passage is really getting at 'the heart of the relationship' by putting these side by side. Strong rhetoric if you don't open the passage but not exactly sound exegesis. I think it's rightly identified that this alone does little to address women in leadership roles in the church as no one in Church leadership is to have this kind of sexual or romantically intimate relationship to their congregation. That would be quite inappropriate. Now I think what Bartlett is doing here, as he more or less admits to, is to frame the topic in preparation to address other passages alluded to that *do* have clarity around male leadership within a marriage(I would say 1 Cor 7 rather informs some limitations on this assumed leadership for the protection of women from abuse and men from unhealthy sexual frustration) though I'm sure the prosecution will have some angle on that too. Note that the clarity he claims on this passage isn't consistent with the obfuscation I'm alleging above. If the passage is so clear it should be very easy to quote accurately from and derive the intended argument. His entire interpretation of other passages that many would agree are of greater relevance seems to be informed by the assumption that 'Paul couldn't be contradicting 1 Cor 7; as Bartlett understands him at least. That is a strawman argument to anyone who believes that the sexual dimension of a marriage has parameters or protections distinct from other aspects thereof; a perspective Bartlett seems to simply ignore or discredit without establishing a sound basis for doing so.
Having Stanley E. Porter discuss his book The Pastoral Epistles A Commentary on the Greek Text would be monumental. “If Mount Rushmore honored great and recent English-language commentaries on the Pastorals, alongside the works of I. Howard Marshall, Philip Towner, and Gerald Bray would now appear this offering by Stanley E. Porter.” -Robert W. Yarbrough, professor of New Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary
With all due respect to her, having read the review in CBMW, it was not the standard of thoughtful engagement I would have hoped for. There were multiple statements (such as denying the reality that the Patristics such as Tertullian or Aquinas and even theologians like Barth in his discussion of image did argue or assent to female ontological inferiority in at minimum the areas of rationality and/or possession of image) and the seeming assertion that the very recent discussion of complementarity in terms we largely didn’t see prior to the 1900’s is automatically how gender complementarity discussion has progressed for 2000 years- I don’t think we can assume her position is the historical one either. The whole discussion that struck me as very … lacking nuance…for someone who has a doctorate. I also didn’t appreciate the assertion that Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty is the gold standard for how authority is. I’ve never understood this part and I’ve never found anyone to address it well. If someone agrees and listens to another person, it should be because that person is telling the truth. If so, really, you’re submitting to Jesus because actually it’s just right and true and you should listen no matter where that happens to come from- your child might even speak truth and you should follow that. If the person is not speaking truth, you can’t submit. So either way, you’re actually following Jesus not people and the person has no authority over you- not in the sense that Kuyper argues for anyway, from my understanding. I just don’t see any way around a problematic middle man unless we assent that no person has authority. That’s Bonhoeffer’s argument anyway. Freedom to directly interact with Christ, no person in between. Then, she seems to assume Roman household codes are the standard for family units, but this isn’t a Christian invention, so why would we assume Paul is endorsing the Roman codes as opposed to working within an established system and subverting it? I’m suspicious of assigning Christian approval to secular household units and assuming that is how God’s household is also meant to work. I want God’s household to work according to God’s household code! Then, there were multiple statements of what Bartlett did or didn’t say that had no supporting citation or evidence, not to mention that having listened to the episode, then reading her quotes, I couldn’t help but think were read in a strange interpretive way- I’m not sure I could honestly say I felt she engaged in good faith. Lastly, it seemed like she’d make a point of a proposed weakness and immediately have that same weakness herself (ie choosing her interpretation of creation as the starting point after critiquing his starting point being his interpretation of 1 Corinthians- what if in fact an eschatological progression is instead the best starting point? She gave no supporting argument for her choice as being better.) The entire review came off as rhetorical, and kind of… well… abrasive.
PS- perhaps the most important disagreement I had and worth clarifying goes back to her use of Timothy as the overall point being the ordering of God’s household. Agreed. Of course the household will tie back to the family, otherwise why use family terminology. But surely that in no way proves specific roles within the family. She ties it back to her interpretation of Genesis and I’m just not sure that’s how the ancient audience or participants would have conceived of the Genesis text especially in light of the Royal priestly and functional views of imago Dei. They aren’t thinking Christ- they’re thinking representation of Yahweh, and reinterpretation of the text later isn’t the original idea. Which is fine- but it’s a lot harder to claim that’s the meaning of marriage from time immemorial. It wasn’t originally a picture of Christ/the church to the audience. In the same way, one has to wonder what exactly ‘paul’ means by household and what kind of roles he envisions and how this was taken by the original audience. One wonders whether she’s reading the household code onto the church without considering what changes from the contemporary accepted codes might be made and why- which is exactly Bartlett’s point. Why would it need to be reinterpreted? What’s the differences? So I don’t think she represents him well there.
Andrew Bartlett was unable to sign in to reply to this comment, but here's what he said in reply: I have had friendly contact with Sharon James, but I regret her review of my book on behalf of CBMW was a missed opportunity to engage with what I wrote. Her review attributed to me statements that I did not say, beliefs that I do not hold, and assumptions that I did not make. In some cases, what she represented the book as saying or implying was not merely wrong but was the exact opposite of the words on the page. CBMW declined to correct the review or give me an opportunity to respond. Here’s an example. Sharon wrote: “Throughout his book, Bartlett uses “patriarchy” … as a smear word”. But in fact I don’t use the term “patriarchy” at all. In the whole book, this word appears just once, in the title of an egalitarian article which I mention in a footnote for the purpose of disagreeing with it (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts, page 206; full reference at page 400). It is a sadness that this kind of thing is all too common in the complementarian-egalitarian debate. My plea to my brothers and sisters is to engage more carefully with each others’ viewpoints. Then there is a possibility of some progress in understanding.
Hmmm🤔 The trump card is that God would not gift someone (man or woman) with something he didn’t want used for his glory. Paul’s writings help us make sense of how to use the gifting each follower has received.
The source or "head" waters of a river don't really "create" the river. The Father did not "create" the Spirit, but the Spirit "proceeds" or "comes out" from Him. In those senses, couldn't the Father be the "source" of both the Son and the Spirit? While I have some qualms about "creeds," isn't the concept of the Father as "source" of the Son related to the Nicene "eternally begotten" idea?
I think complementarians treat marriage as the foundation for gender roles in the church, and the mutuality found in 1 Corinthians 7 upends that. Mounce said that 1 Timothy 2 references Genesis, but what part of Genesis? The “curses” of Genesis 3 deal with how men and women sinfully relate to one another, not how God is to be served/worshipped. The temptation to treat Gen. 3 as prescriptive should go away by reading 1 Cor 7.
The "source" argument, if you see source as the fountain of life or one proceeding from the other, shouldn't be hard to understand with the way Paul uses it. Paul is a creation theologian. 1 Cor 11 details exactly what Paul means by "head" with Eve being taken from the side of Adam. God is the head of Christ in the send that Christ proceeded from the Trinitarian godhead. Paul even uses head in this way to describe God's creative relationship with the world in Colossians 1.
There's also that overall theme of unity and oneness in 1 Corinthians, which the body-to-head metaphor echoes. The one is integral to the other: a body needs a head, just as a head needs a body. In no way does that undo the head=source idea, of course; in fact, I'd' say it adds to the idea of an integral relationship, Adam being the source of Eve, and henceforth all of mankind coming through women. Kinda kicks the legs out from under the hierarchical model that neither male nor female is subordinate when they are unified.
I enjoyed this guys perspective but I knew with a short time he is egalitarian. It sounds like his study strengthens his already held belief. I’d like to hear his view on Titus 2 and 1 Peter3. I find the “Source” vs. “Head” argument a stretch.
Then you have to be calling him a liar, as he clearly stated he had no dog in the fight and didn't care which way he landed. Your statement makes a claim that he is a liar.
@@annlowry9841 Plus, he started in a complementarian environment, and that was the point-of-view he assumed, so his "already held belief" was NOT egalitarian.
Andrew Bartlett is a man that grew up in a male dominated world. He is a perfect candidate to be pledged to Complementarianism. Preston, though verbally respectful, is obviously struggling with some of Bartlett’s conclusions by the way he fidgets and squirms in his chair. I think that is because he knows that what Andrew Bartlett is saying makes perfect sense contextually. I think Preston secretly struggles with his desire to rule over women, most men do.
I always thought that Paul meant there should be mutual agreement among husband and wife in all things, not just in the bedroom. It never seemed right to me that the wife had no say in any decisions. How can two walk together unless they agree? Is the wife really walking with her husband if she just blindly follows his every decision? No. She is walking BEHIND him. Like a dog at his heel. But, then again, even a dog walks BESIDE his owner. (Sometimes in front of the owner, which just means the pet isn't properly trained. But, women are not pets as if they have inferior brains to men.) It appears to me that the men who believe women should remain silent and fall in line to the husbands every whim is not a very loving man. In my experience, they are harsh and controlling.
He gave the best explanation ever!❤
I love listening to smart people, especially when their hearts just as big as their brains ❤
Brilliant Discussion!!!! Need a part 2! Thanks Preston for creating this space for conversations like this.
Would love a part 2!
@Preston Sprinkle at 54:50 when you said this here about savior status possibly giving someone inherit authority - what immediately popped into my head was Genesis 2. The woman, the Ezer helper. The man is alone and cannot be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, ruling over the fish of the sea and the birds in the sky and over all the earth without her. She is in many ways a type messiah/savior/rescuer/helper. Without her there is no family, no multiplication, no fruitfulness which the rule of humanity was to be built upon. She basically is the bridge to his destiny and purpose. The vessel of God’s provision for the man in a state of lack. The first time something was labeled “not good”. Yet we would never say this makes her the one with power over him…so I dunno
as always, I appreciate Preston's willingness to ask good questions in a charitable way
At 1:14 Andrew states that the Complementarian position does not hold up. It is based on proof texts. Other long-accepted doctrines are just as weak with eternal conscious torment being a key example.
Very insightful conversation
Not finished yet but starting with obfuscation of 1 Cor 7 seems like the litigator Bartlett coming out more than the impartiality of an adjudicator. Here's the passage for context:
"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." NIV
I'm not sure I can see that he's even trying to be impartial given the language Andrew uses such as describing this passage as 'about decision making' as opposed to fidelity and chastity being the primary subject at hand(for all sorts of people in different contexts throughout the chapter) as well as referring to the authority over each spouse mentioned in generic rather than bodily terms. Where prayer in the passage is mentioned as merely an exception to regular sexual intimacy Bartlett alleges the passage is really getting at 'the heart of the relationship' by putting these side by side. Strong rhetoric if you don't open the passage but not exactly sound exegesis.
I think it's rightly identified that this alone does little to address women in leadership roles in the church as no one in Church leadership is to have this kind of sexual or romantically intimate relationship to their congregation. That would be quite inappropriate.
Now I think what Bartlett is doing here, as he more or less admits to, is to frame the topic in preparation to address other passages alluded to that *do* have clarity around male leadership within a marriage(I would say 1 Cor 7 rather informs some limitations on this assumed leadership for the protection of women from abuse and men from unhealthy sexual frustration) though I'm sure the prosecution will have some angle on that too. Note that the clarity he claims on this passage isn't consistent with the obfuscation I'm alleging above. If the passage is so clear it should be very easy to quote accurately from and derive the intended argument. His entire interpretation of other passages that many would agree are of greater relevance seems to be informed by the assumption that 'Paul couldn't be contradicting 1 Cor 7; as Bartlett understands him at least. That is a strawman argument to anyone who believes that the sexual dimension of a marriage has parameters or protections distinct from other aspects thereof; a perspective Bartlett seems to simply ignore or discredit without establishing a sound basis for doing so.
Having Stanley E. Porter discuss his book The Pastoral Epistles
A Commentary on the Greek Text would be monumental.
“If Mount Rushmore honored great and recent English-language commentaries on the Pastorals, alongside the works of I. Howard Marshall, Philip Towner, and Gerald Bray would now appear this offering by Stanley E. Porter.”
-Robert W. Yarbrough, professor of New Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary
Chapters with timestamps would be nice.
Interesting conversation! I would request a "rebuttal review" of this book. I read one very compelling by Sharon James.
With all due respect to her, having read the review in CBMW, it was not the standard of thoughtful engagement I would have hoped for. There were multiple statements (such as denying the reality that the Patristics such as Tertullian or Aquinas and even theologians like Barth in his discussion of image did argue or assent to female ontological inferiority in at minimum the areas of rationality and/or possession of image) and the seeming assertion that the very recent discussion of complementarity in terms we largely didn’t see prior to the 1900’s is automatically how gender complementarity discussion has progressed for 2000 years- I don’t think we can assume her position is the historical one either. The whole discussion that struck me as very … lacking nuance…for someone who has a doctorate. I also didn’t appreciate the assertion that Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty is the gold standard for how authority is. I’ve never understood this part and I’ve never found anyone to address it well. If someone agrees and listens to another person, it should be because that person is telling the truth. If so, really, you’re submitting to Jesus because actually it’s just right and true and you should listen no matter where that happens to come from- your child might even speak truth and you should follow that. If the person is not speaking truth, you can’t submit. So either way, you’re actually following Jesus not people and the person has no authority over you- not in the sense that Kuyper argues for anyway, from my understanding. I just don’t see any way around a problematic middle man unless we assent that no person has authority. That’s Bonhoeffer’s argument anyway. Freedom to directly interact with Christ, no person in between.
Then, she seems to assume Roman household codes are the standard for family units, but this isn’t a Christian invention, so why would we assume Paul is endorsing the Roman codes as opposed to working within an established system and subverting it? I’m suspicious of assigning Christian approval to secular household units and assuming that is how God’s household is also meant to work. I want God’s household to work according to God’s household code!
Then, there were multiple statements of what Bartlett did or didn’t say that had no supporting citation or evidence, not to mention that having listened to the episode, then reading her quotes, I couldn’t help but think were read in a strange interpretive way- I’m not sure I could honestly say I felt she engaged in good faith.
Lastly, it seemed like she’d make a point of a proposed weakness and immediately have that same weakness herself (ie choosing her interpretation of creation as the starting point after critiquing his starting point being his interpretation of 1 Corinthians- what if in fact an eschatological progression is instead the best starting point? She gave no supporting argument for her choice as being better.) The entire review came off as rhetorical, and kind of… well… abrasive.
PS- perhaps the most important disagreement I had and worth clarifying goes back to her use of Timothy as the overall point being the ordering of God’s household. Agreed. Of course the household will tie back to the family, otherwise why use family terminology. But surely that in no way proves specific roles within the family. She ties it back to her interpretation of Genesis and I’m just not sure that’s how the ancient audience or participants would have conceived of the Genesis text especially in light of the Royal priestly and functional views of imago Dei. They aren’t thinking Christ- they’re thinking representation of Yahweh, and reinterpretation of the text later isn’t the original idea. Which is fine- but it’s a lot harder to claim that’s the meaning of marriage from time immemorial. It wasn’t originally a picture of Christ/the church to the audience. In the same way, one has to wonder what exactly ‘paul’ means by household and what kind of roles he envisions and how this was taken by the original audience. One wonders whether she’s reading the household code onto the church without considering what changes from the contemporary accepted codes might be made and why- which is exactly Bartlett’s point. Why would it need to be reinterpreted? What’s the differences? So I don’t think she represents him well there.
Andrew Bartlett was unable to sign in to reply to this comment, but here's what he said in reply:
I have had friendly contact with Sharon James, but I regret her review of my book on behalf of CBMW was a missed opportunity to engage with what I wrote. Her review attributed to me statements that I did not say, beliefs that I do not hold, and assumptions that I did not make. In some cases, what she represented the book as saying or implying was not merely wrong but was the exact opposite of the words on the page. CBMW declined to correct the review or give me an opportunity to respond.
Here’s an example. Sharon wrote: “Throughout his book, Bartlett uses “patriarchy” … as a smear word”. But in fact I don’t use the term “patriarchy” at all. In the whole book, this word appears just once, in the title of an egalitarian article which I mention in a footnote for the purpose of disagreeing with it (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts, page 206; full reference at page 400).
It is a sadness that this kind of thing is all too common in the complementarian-egalitarian debate. My plea to my brothers and sisters is to engage more carefully with each others’ viewpoints. Then there is a possibility of some progress in understanding.
Hmmm🤔
The trump card is that God would not gift someone (man or woman) with something he didn’t want used for his glory. Paul’s writings help us make sense of how to use the gifting each follower has received.
The source or "head" waters of a river don't really "create" the river. The Father did not "create" the Spirit, but the Spirit "proceeds" or "comes out" from Him. In those senses, couldn't the Father be the "source" of both the Son and the Spirit? While I have some qualms about "creeds," isn't the concept of the Father as "source" of the Son related to the Nicene "eternally begotten" idea?
I think complementarians treat marriage as the foundation for gender roles in the church, and the mutuality found in 1 Corinthians 7 upends that. Mounce said that 1 Timothy 2 references Genesis, but what part of Genesis? The “curses” of Genesis 3 deal with how men and women sinfully relate to one another, not how God is to be served/worshipped. The temptation to treat Gen. 3 as prescriptive should go away by reading 1 Cor 7.
The "source" argument, if you see source as the fountain of life or one proceeding from the other, shouldn't be hard to understand with the way Paul uses it. Paul is a creation theologian. 1 Cor 11 details exactly what Paul means by "head" with Eve being taken from the side of Adam. God is the head of Christ in the send that Christ proceeded from the Trinitarian godhead. Paul even uses head in this way to describe God's creative relationship with the world in Colossians 1.
There's also that overall theme of unity and oneness in 1 Corinthians, which the body-to-head metaphor echoes. The one is integral to the other: a body needs a head, just as a head needs a body. In no way does that undo the head=source idea, of course; in fact, I'd' say it adds to the idea of an integral relationship, Adam being the source of Eve, and henceforth all of mankind coming through women. Kinda kicks the legs out from under the hierarchical model that neither male nor female is subordinate when they are unified.
Source also implies same substance, therefore equal as in not being inferior of one to the other.
I enjoyed this guys perspective but I knew with a short time he is egalitarian. It sounds like his study strengthens his already held belief. I’d like to hear his view on Titus 2 and 1 Peter3. I find the “Source” vs. “Head” argument a stretch.
Then you have to be calling him a liar, as he clearly stated he had no dog in the fight and didn't care which way he landed.
Your statement makes a claim that he is a liar.
@@annlowry9841 Plus, he started in a complementarian environment, and that was the point-of-view he assumed, so his "already held belief" was NOT egalitarian.
Andrew Bartlett is a man that grew up in a male dominated world. He is a perfect candidate to be pledged to Complementarianism. Preston, though verbally respectful, is obviously struggling with some of Bartlett’s conclusions by the way he fidgets and squirms in his chair. I think that is because he knows that what Andrew Bartlett is saying makes perfect sense contextually. I think Preston secretly struggles with his desire to rule over women, most men do.
3:22 no surprise here an egalitarian is welcomed to speak on the meaning of HEAD in 1 Cor 11 &. Eph 5.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
I always thought that Paul meant there should be mutual agreement among husband and wife in all things, not just in the bedroom. It never seemed right to me that the wife had no say in any decisions. How can two walk together unless they agree? Is the wife really walking with her husband if she just blindly follows his every decision? No. She is walking BEHIND him. Like a dog at his heel. But, then again, even a dog walks BESIDE his owner. (Sometimes in front of the owner, which just means the pet isn't properly trained. But, women are not pets as if they have inferior brains to men.) It appears to me that the men who believe women should remain silent and fall in line to the husbands every whim is not a very loving man. In my experience, they are harsh and controlling.
Internation arbitration is a colonialist scam. This podcast settled that for me.
Ugh, why do you ask him questions from Peppiat book? It's not about her writing . Focus on his book