internetmonk.com
…

See if you can test your argumentative empathy skills, and imagine what the response would be to your statement, “the gender role thing starts as a consequence of the fall”. Or how a Christian who disagreed with you might charactarize a view that a calling as a “fragile follower” is a negative thing.

Okay, I can see the argument for that. However, I would read the narrative thrust differently. I believe that the Genisis account presents us with two sexually different but fully equal beings who participate equally in the divine mandate. The gender role thing starts as a consequence of the fall. And it’s been “the man’s in charge” and “women are fragile followers” throughout the (sinful) world ever since. So it’s part of God’s work of re-creation (another big Wright theme) to work *counter-culturally* to bring men and women back into equality. I like your phrase, “sexual steamroller of culture,” but I think it’s driving in the opposite direction than you do! Western culture has been, for many centuries, deeply patriarchal in some very damaging ways, and it’s hardly become egalitarian (esp. not in a biblical sense!) over the last four decades. Don’t misread me, I’m not supporting the idea that sexuality is a wash–that’s the world’s version of egalitarian sexuality. But I don’t think God is patriarchal, either.

Anyway, you answered my question as to the approach of NT Wright fans who are complimentarian, and I appreciate that.

The simple answer is that these people see embracing our god-given identities as male and female as part of the thrust of the story. To capitulate to the sexual steamroller of our culture is seen as being unfaithful to the gospel. You need not assume disagreements stem only from cognitive dissonance.

Now here’s something to spice things up a bit: I assume from your post that you are at least in general on board with Wright’s view of scripture. This, in my short form, is that the Bible is the story of God’s interaction with the world as told by His people and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Emphasis for Wright is on the narrative of Scripture, and the impact of genre and historical setting on interpretation. The role of the church is to carry on this narrative, empowered by the same Spirit, in congruence with the narrative we have before us (the first 4 acts in ntpg), yet not merely recapitulating it.

On the basis of this view of scripture, it only makes sense that things like slavery which are taken for granted in OT legislation need not be taken for granted today in a world that has a more robust understanding of the equality of all peoples. In the same way, the role of women in the church need not simply recapitulate the oppressive patriarchy taken for granted in the Bible (there was no alternative for these Spirit inspired authors to consider). Rather, in a world with a more gospel-ized understanding of the full humanity of women, the church is now able to affirm the Spirit’s gifting of women and men for all kinds of ministry.

The above, it seems to me, is a very likely conclusion for most people who who are NT Wright fans. So my question is this: How do people who like NT Wright, yet do not support women in pastoral ministry, deal with (what I see as) the inevitable cognitive dissonance?

Any thoughts?

Matt