Issues Evaluation

A BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO FEMINISM

By Pastor Brian Demers

Riverside Drive Baptist Church, Auburn, ME

Presented at Shepherd’s Haven, March 2012

 

Feminism is not a contemporary or ground breaking movement exclusive to America.  It has plagued the human race from the fall of man and the church of Jesus Christ from its inception almost two thousand years ago.  Feminism has always been disastrous to the home, society, and the church.  Feminism’s influence in America’s religious denominations, associations, fellowships, conventions, and individual churches continues to grow.  Biblical inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency continue to be compromised and abandoned; the ordination of women, women pastors, abortion, and homosexuality is increasingly being accepted.

Feminism’s is not retreating or being relegated to an insignificant issue in the family, society, or the church.  In fact, its influence is increasing.  On account of feminism’s increasing influence and acceptance specifically in church practice and teachings, this paper will recount the history and impact of feminism on evangelicalism (previously known as new-evangelicalism) since the 1960s, summarize the theological positions taken by feminism’s proponents within evangelicalism, exegete key Scripture verses and passages used by feminism’s proponents, and address the most recent feminist trend in evangelicalism.

HISTORY OF FEMINISM IN THE UNITED STATES

Betty Friedan and Pauli Murray founded the National Organization of Women (NOW) in June, 1966.  NOW’s purpose has always been “to take action in bringing women into full participation in the mainstream of American society, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.”[1]  In order to achieve its objective NOW instituted several tasks forces:  Equal Opportunity of Employment; Legal and Political Rights; Education; Women in Poverty; the Family, Image of Women; Sexuality and Lesbianism; and Women and Religion.[2]

Most of NOW’s impact has been felt in legislation, business, education, and the military.  It has successfully battled and campaigned for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, the repeal of abortion laws, reproductive freedom, the Comprehensive Child Care Act, gay and lesbian rights, women in military rank and combat, Equal Opportunities in Sports (Title IX), and other causes which the organization perceives to suppress woman’s liberation.[3]

NOW has never claimed or pretended to be a religious organization.  Initially, a majority of evangelicals considered NOW’s feminist ideology and agenda to be antithetical to evangelicalism’s conservative theology, especially the “literal” interpretation of Scripture.  Evangelicalism’s perception of feminism has changed.  Feminist ideology is increasingly being accepted and called “Biblical.”

NOW’s ideology and influence in evangelicalism emerged in 1973.  About sixty evangelicals who promoted social justice met and formed Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA).[4]  The 1973 meeting produced the Chicago Declaration which stated among many topics, “We [evangelicals] acknowledge that we have encouraged men to prideful domination and women to irresponsible passivity.  So we call both men and women to mutual submission and active discipleship.”[5]  Evangelical Feminism (EF) was born.

Encouraged by the Chicago Declaration, a large number of evangelical women attended and participated in a second conference (1974).  One plenary session on women’s issues was led by Nancy Hardesty and Letha Scanzoni, the authors of All We’re Meant To Be:  Biblical Feminism for Today.[6]  This plenary session resulted in a resolution which stated that “the Bible, when interpreted correctly, teaches the equality of women and men.”[7]  Also springing from the 1974 convention were resolutions supporting the Equal Rights Amendment, ordination of women, inclusive language in Bible translations and Christian education material, and the abolishment of discrimination against women by Christian institutions.[8]  In addition to these resolutions, the Evangelical Women’s Caucus (EWC) and its written publication promoting feminism in evangelicalism, Daughters of Sarah was officially formed.[9]

Evangelicals, theological liberals, and secular feminists took notice of the growing feminist movement in evangelicalism.  Theological liberal women who were outside of evangelical belief and members of NOW joined the EWC, becoming influential leaders within the movement.  Because theological liberalism was promoted by theological liberal leaders in the EWC, rifts began to form—mainly over the inerrancy of Scripture and homosexuality.[10]  These rifts led to a split in the EWC (1984).  Those who opposed the progressive movement of the EWC left the organization and created a new organization committed to a more conservative, feminist, and women’s theology called Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE).  It promoted its beliefs in its newsletter, the Priscilla Papers.[11]

Because of the EWC split in 1984, the EWC convened a reimaging conference addressing its statement of faith and direction (1986).[12]  Letha Scanzoni stated at the conference that the EWC needed to change its name “due to the fact that some members [EWC] do not wish to be identified with fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture and a right-wing social/political agenda,” and that the name “evangelical” seemed “too narrowing and confining” to their agenda.[13]  After four years of debate, the membership of EWC approved the change of its name from the Evangelical Woman’s Caucus to the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women’s Caucus (EEWC).[14]

In response to NOW’s, EEWC’s, and CBE’s theology and influence, the Center for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) was formed (1987).[15]  The CBMW stated that is was committed to a literal interpretation of Scripture which espouses a complementary view of women.  The CBMW’s leadership has included Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Mark Strauss, and D.A. Carson.  CBMW’s official publication is the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

FEMINISM’S IMPACT ON EVANGELICALISM

From Evangelical Feminism’s inception in 1974, Christianity Today and its first chief editor Carl Henry have been two of EF’s most important supporters.  Whether in publications, conferences, or speaking engagements,

 Henry prodded evangelicals to be more open in considering social activism, ecumenism, and new intellectual ideas in order to see spiritual renewal in America.  He believed that an evangelical faith true to its nineteenth-century inheritance would combine the best of both the liberal social gospel [social justice] movement and fundamentalist orthodoxy, and because of this combination, it would be attractive to the secular world.[16]

Evangelicals followed Henry’s leadership, advocating for reform and justice in social issues—this included women’s equality with men.  During the 1970s, some evangelicals bristled over the continual minimizing of Scripture’s inerrancy—such as had occurred in EF.  Instead of advocating for inerrancy, Henry complained in 1976 that the commitment to inerrancy was a roadblock to social reform.  He stated,

The reactionary elevation of inerrancy as the superbadge of evangelical orthodoxy deploys energies to this controversy that evangelicals might better apply to producing comprehensive theological and philosophical works so desperately needed in a time of national and civilization crisis.[17]

The de-emphasis of Scripture’s inerrancy and willingness to embrace unbiblical cultural philosophies has always been the hallmark of evangelicalism.  EF, which calls itself Biblical Feminism, is the unbiblical philosophy of feminism championed by NOW.  The only difference between NOW’s and EF’s ideology is EF’s utilization of religious names and terminology.

Throughout the New Testament, God commands His children to use the Scriptures as their guide through life rather than the culture’s unbiblical philosophies which are rooted in the world (Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:1; 4:17-19).  The Lord expects His church, the ground and pillar of truth, to “contend earnestly for the faith [the whole counsel of God] which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jude 3).

EVANGELICAL FEMINISM’S IMPACT ON FUNDAMENTALISM

Over the last three decades, fundamentalists have been grouped together with evangelicals.  Many prominent men who identify themselves as fundamentalists also identify themselves as evangelicals.  The branding of fundamentalists as evangelicals has resulted in the belief that evangelicals are fundamentalists, that their doctrines are the same.  Fundamentalism and evangelicalism are antithetical.  Fundamentalism’s difference from evangelicalism is three-fold:  Scripture’s inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency; loving God; and the holiness of God in doctrine, behavior, and associations.

Fundamentalists have continually been pressured by culture, sociology, psychology, theological liberalism, evangelicalism, and personal experiences.  News accounts testify to the success of the career woman in business and politics.  Church goers extol the compassion and love of women ministers.  While it cannot be denied that women can be “successful” in business, politics, and ministry, personal experiences and news reports are not authoritative—the Scriptures are.  Regrettably, some fundamentalists’ have succumbed to this pressure, changing their theology, practice, and polity.

THEOLOGICAL LIBERALISM OF EVANGELICAL FEMINISM

Evangelical Feminism is theological liberalism.  The departure from Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency is at the heart of EF.

Two normative Bible passages testify to Scripture’s inspiration:  II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:12-21.  The former passage declares inspiration; the latter one details the process of inspiration which results in Scripture’s inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency.

God’s Word is the product of the Holy Spirit’s superintendence of specific individuals, not “an act of human will” (II Peter 1:21). The Apostle Peter was an exclusive eyewitness to Jesus’ transfiguration (Matthew 17:9).  He also witnessed Jesus Christ’s ascension into heaven haring the words, “This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11; II Peter 1:16-18).  Peter’s first epistle did not rely upon his eyewitness account (personal experiences) of Christ’s glory and majesty; instead, his epistle depended upon the written Word of God (II Peter 1:12-19).  The Apostle Paul had rabbinical training.  Both men were not immune to cultural influences and philosophies, yet their past experiences and wills did not override the moving of the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:20-21).   The words of Scripture and its message are God’s.

Evangelical Feminists deny Scripture’s testimony of itself.  They contend that the Bible was written by men who were patriarchal (sexist) and misogynist like their culture.  In other words, they believe that the Bible is the errant product of men.  Virginia Mollenkott, a member of both NOW and the EEWC, argues that the Apostle Paul’s teachings are the product of his rabbinical past and training which suppresses and oppresses women.[18]  Paul Jewett, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, concurs with Mollenkott’s assertion when he writes, “[the apostle] Paul’s was mistaken in his statements suggesting women’s subordination to men based upon his misinterpretation of Genesis.”[19]  Some Evangelical Feminists state that Genesis chapters one and two have “differing [conflicting] accounts concerning the order of [man’s and woman’s] creation,” or that Genesis chapter two was added because patriarchal men want to dominate women.[20]

The reason why individuals can deny Scripture’s inspiration, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency and still be considered an evangelical is because of the continual erosion of inerrancy in evangelicalism.[21]

Evangelical Feminism considers sociology and psychology authoritative and sufficient either on par with or above Scripture’s.  When sociology and psychology contradict the Bible, evangelical feminists choose sociology and psychology over the Bible because these “sciences” are the final authority for mankind.

Feminists call on all women to free themselves from a society and church which oppresses, suppresses, and discriminates against women.  They maintain that when women free themselves from patriarchy and its traditional roles for women, they will be able to increase their self-esteem, fulfilling their potential, and fully utilize their God given gifts to the glory of God.  Hardesty’s and Scanzoni’s influential book on “Biblical” feminism argues based upon the behavioral sciences that a woman who remains at home as a housewife and homemaker is in great danger of suicide, depression, addiction, and extramarital affairs.[22]  They write,

Such women [women in the home] may think of themselves as martyrs, sacrificing everything for their families.  In actuality, they are committing mental-emotional suicide, hurting both themselves and others.  Such mothers are not really giving themselves to their families.  They are denying their families the real personality, the richly fulfilled woman, the true self that could have been (and still could be) if only they would be willing to face up to the problem.[23]

Scanzoni’s and Hardesty’s affinity for sociology and psychology rather than the Bible is found throughout their book.  Concerning their beliefs which form the basis of their book they write,

As we pondered the issues together, studied the Scriptures, and researched the social sciences, it became clear that there were other ways of looking at women’s and men’s roles in home, church, and society…We became convinced that Jesus Christ came to set us free from restrictive social roles, to make us whole persons.[24]

Another movement in addition to Hardesty’s and Scanzoni’s feminism which denies Scripture’s authority and sufficiency is the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic (RMH).  RMH asserts that time and culture has changed; therefore, man’s reasoning must determine for today’s culture the “ultimate ethic.”[25]  William Webb, a proponent of this hermeneutical methodology, writes,

The Biblical author pushed society as far as it could go at that time without  creating more damage than good; however, it can and should ultimately go further…Paul clearly does move the scrimmage marker in terms of his own culture.  The question is, did he move them in an absolute sense (all the way to the goal line) or only in a preliminary way (from midfield to the thirty-yard line)?[26]

Evangelical Feminism is theological liberalism because it departs from a Biblical hermeneutic.  Evangelical Feminism is just one of many movements which deny that a child of God can objectively study and know the truths of God’s Word.  The main reason for their assertion is the belief that man is solely the product of cultural influences.  This type of reasoning leads to truth becoming individual, subjective, relative, and pragmatic.

While it is true that every person can possess presuppositions, it is patently false to believe that objectivity is impossible (II Peter 1:12-21).  God’s Word is the final authority, or standard by which all thoughts and beliefs are to be measured.  The child of God can objectively and “accurately handle the Word of truth” because he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and able to understand spiritual matters (II Timothy 2:15; I Corinthians 2).

Most evangelical feminists adhere to the belief that church teachings throughout history “stand on theological tradition derived from cultural prejudices.”  This belief causes them to state that contemporary, correct Biblical interpretation teaches equality of both women and men.[27]  Hardesty and Scanzoni write,

‘Every promise of the book is mine!’ However, even in considering the whole Bible, we must remember that the book was primarily written by men in patriarchal cultures; that the canon was defined by men, who left out many books now known to us to be more favorable to women; that Scripture has been interpreted for two thousand years by male exegetes and theologians in support of male supremacy.  Even reference books betray male bias.  Thus, as feminist Bible scholar Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza suggests, a ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ is always in order.[28]

Evangelical Feminism is theological liberalism because it is steeped in the social gospel which is related to social justice and liberation theology.

EF believes that the Gospel of Jesus Christ focuses on eliminating the oppression and suppression of women making them equal with men rather than on substitutionary atonement or the forgiveness of sins.[29]  In other words, “redemption removes roles.”  In their eyes, the church must engage in social justice so that societal evils such as Patriarchalism, racism, militarism, greed, and environmental abuse can be eliminated.[30]

The social gospel gained acceptance in American churches in the 1920s.  The societal evils of that generation were child labor, poverty, greed, racial pride, and war.[31]  Forty years later (1960s), the social gospel sought to eliminate racism, military imperialism, and feminism.  For the past thirty years AIDS, famine, and malaria are society’s evils.

A BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO EVANGELICAL FEMINISM

EF’s extensively contradicts the Bible—more than can be addressed in one paper.  This paper will address three beliefs which form the foundation for all of EF’s beliefs and agenda:  a woman’s standing before God, roles in the home, and roles in the church (Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 5:15-33, and I Corinthians 11-14).

For EF, Galatians 3:28 is the “normative text” or “hermeneutical priority”[32] for all women’s issues.  Paul Jewett calls Galatians 3:28 the “Magna Carta of Humanity.”[33]  Another writer labels it the “Emancipation Proclamation of Women.”[34]  Klyne Snodgrass has declared Galatians 3:28 to be “the most socially explosive text in the Bible.”[35]

Egalitarians, conservative and liberal, believe that Galatians 3:28 eliminates male-female role distinctions and “undifferentiated role interchangeability” in both the home and the church.[36]

Galatians is a written defense of justification by faith (Gal. 1:6-9, 3:24-26).  It was never intended to eliminate gender specific roles.  Individuals were promoting “another Gospel” which was based on works or merit.  Those who are justified by faith are “in Christ”—fully and equally “sons of God” and heirs (Gal. 3:26-29).  Nationality, social status, and gender are not factors in justification or eternal rewards.

Progressive Revelation further confirms that Galatians 3:28 does not eliminate gender specific roles.  For example, the Scriptures teach that only two offices exist in the local church—pastor and deacon (I Timothy 3).  Early on in the Jerusalem Church there were no pastors or deacons (Acts 2).  These offices were instituted at later times.  I Timothy, which was written towards the end of progressive revelation establishes two offices.  No books written after I Timothy modify or change the number of offices in the church.  Books of the Bible containing references to slavery, roles in the home, and roles in the church were written after Galatians.  These books include Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles, and Philemon.

In addition to making Galatians 3:28 the normative text for all gender issues, egalitarians circumvent references to gender specific roles in the home and church by stating that principles relating to men and women found in New Testament books were only binding for temporal problems and specific geographical locations.  For example, egalitarians would argue that the Apostle Paul’s directives concerning women’s appearance and silence in churches with respect to men were for a specific problem in Ephesus at a specific time (I Timothy 2).  Therefore, Paul’s directives are not binding for any other church at any other time.  Many New Testament Scripture passages pertaining to gender specific roles cite Genesis 1-3.  Genesis establishes enduring, universal truths.

Ephesians 5:15-33 is the most comprehensive passage teaching roles and responsibilities in marriage.  Egalitarians choose to solely focus on five words—“submitting yourselves one to another” (5:21).  EF creates a complete and systematic theological model for marriage from these five words.

The Greek word translated “submit” is a present middle participle modifying the imperative “fill” (5:18).  The participle is telic, stating purpose.  In other words, God’s children are commanded to “fill themselves in spiritual things so that they can submit themselves one to another in the fear of Christ.”  Egalitarians give the participle “submit” the force of an imperative.

The pronoun “one to another” is reciprocal and in the dative case.  Reciprocal pronouns express an interchange between individuals.  The dative case expresses “personal interest.”[37]  Personal interest includes reference.[38]  Submission is in the interest, or to the advantage, of both parties who are involved—the husband and wife.

In Ephesians 5, “submit” is modified by the prepositional phrase “in the fear of Christ.”  Christ is the head of His body, the church.  Since marriage exemplifies the relationship between Christ and the church, every husband and wife submits to the Lord.  They are accountable and responsible to Him.

Submission is in the interest of both the husband and wife in a soteriological and eschatological sense (5:5; 5:16; 5:27; 6:8; 6:18).  Both husbands and wives will appear before the Bema of Christ in which each of them will give an account of their faithfulness to the Lord in the roles the Lord has given to them.  It is in the best interest of every husband to be the leader of his home because He will stand before Christ’s Bema.  Furthermore, it is in every husband’s best interest to lead his wife in becoming Christ-like because she will stand before the Bema.  It is in every wife’s best interest to be submissive to her husband because she and her husband will stand before the Bema of Christ.[39]  The will of God includes gender-specific roles of leadership and submission.  By faithfully following these roles and submitting to the Lord, the child of God will be “holy and blameless before Him” (1:4).

I Corinthians 11-14 contain two truths which impact a woman’s involvement in the local church:  the definition of “head” (11:3), as well as women praying, prophesying, or remaining silent in the church (11:4-5; 14:34).

The Greek word translated “head” is κεφαλὴ.  It means, “The head, summit, chief point in a matter, the conclusion, the principal personage.”[40]  κεφαλὴ indicates authority; it does not imply superiority or inferiority.  The use of κεφαλὴ does not discount the worth of women in the church; it simply institutes order and organization in the church.

Egalitarians and Evangelical Feminists define κεφαλὴ as “source, origin.”  This definition does not fall within the semantic range of κεφαλὴ.[41]  Defining κεφαλὴ as “source, origin” obliterates the eternality of Christ stating that Christ is a creation of God the Father.  This definition of κεφαλὴ would also promote pluralism.

Feminism was a watershed issue in the Roman Empire and the Corinthian church.  The Roman Empire witnessed the rise of the “new” woman beginning in 44 BC.[42]  It remained a prevalent and contentious issue for three centuries.[43]  Women serving the Lord in the Corinthian church evidenced their adherence to feminist philosophy by removing their head covering (11:4-16).  The problem in the Corinthian church was not women praying or prophesying, it was their disdain and rejection of God’s ordained order for the church.  Their disdain for God’s ordained order in the church created an environment detrimental to the spiritual welfare of the church (14:33).

Paul’s remedy for the Corinthian situation was the Biblical authority structure of the home (14:33-35).  Rather than directly and openly challenging prophecy in public services, wives were commanded to engage their husbands privately at home.  If the prophets in the church needed to be challenged, it was the husband’s responsibility to do so on behalf of his wife.  A woman can identify false teaching just as any man can!

THE NEW BATTLE WITH EVANGELICAL FEMINISM

Over the last fifty years, churches have battled feminism in the areas of abortion, women’s ordination, and the home.  Churches are facing a new and emerging aspect of Evangelical Feminism—politics.  The last twenty-five years has seen a continual increase in the number of evangelical Christian women which have run for public office nationally and locally.  Two prominent evangelical feminist women in politics are Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin.[44]

Although the Bible does not directly address women serving in a political office, it is sufficient and authoritative for this issue.

The Scriptures make abundantly clear that women are not inferior to men.  Women should be appreciated and cherished for their spiritual and intellectual capabilities as well as their ability to serve.  Women can be effective public servants.  Effectiveness, however, is not the measuring stick or final arbiter in this issue.  After studying Scripture passages pertaining to women, it is the conclusion of this writer that women should not serve in public office.

Overall, in the Bible, God has designated men as leaders having and exercising authority.  Women have been assigned by God to complement men, being subordinate to their authority.  Part of an official’s responsibility is the oversight of other leaders and authorities.  The leadership and authority of men is challenged and compromised by women filling political offices.

The Scriptures teach that a wife is the complement of her husband in helping him to be a godly, effective leader and servant of God.  A wife is subordinate to her husband as well as a co-ruler over her children with her husband bearing the greater responsibility and accountability before the Lord.  Her ministry in the home directly impacts her family, and indirectly impacts society.  A wife’s and mother’s influence must not be minimized.

The virtuous woman (Proverbs 31) is a multi-faceted and multi-tasking woman.  She works for the benefit and success of her home—her husband and children.  While her accolades come from her husband and children, it is her husband who is “known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land” (Proverbs 31:23).

Judges’ chapters four and five are an example of male leadership and female subordination.  Israel had no king.  God raised up men to judge Israel.  God chose Barak to deliver Israel from the oppression of the Canaanites.  Barak was a reluctant leader who would only go into battle if Deborah accompanied him.  Deborah went to the site of the ballet.  She did not usurp Barak’s leadership nor engage the enemy in battle.

A similar battle to women in politics is the presence of women in military combat.  This too is another issue with which the church must contend.  The previous cited reasons pertaining to women and political offices can be used to address women in combat.

CONCLUSION

Feminism has infiltrated the hearts and minds of God’s children as well as local churches.   The pressure to compromise God’s Word is enormous.  This pressure grows as more churches succumb to feminism.   Those who resist unbiblical change will be vilified, excoriated, and called sexist, misogynists, prejudicial, and male chauvinists.

The pastor, deacons, and men of the church should cherish, appreciate, and encourage women’s service in the local church.  Women must know that there are many more opportunities of service in the church than there are forbidden by the Lord.  Women should be challenged to faithful serve God and be content with His will, as well as be reminded that contentedly obeying God’s will results in eternal reward, eternal service, and joy.  The notion, that a complementary and subordinate role is ineffective and insignificant, must be dispelled.

In local churches, let us address women’s service Biblically, lovingly, graciously, and with resolve.

[1] “The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose.”  http://www.now.org/history/ purpose66.html.

[2] “Highlights from NOW’s Forty Fearless Years.”  http://www.now.org/history/timeline.html.

 [3] Ibid.

 [4] Pamela Cochran, Evangelical Feminism:  a History. (New York: New York University Press, 2005), p. 12.

 [5] Ibid., p. 13.

 [6] Scanzoni, Letha Dawson and Hardesty, Nancy A., All We’re Meant To Be:  Biblical Feminism for Today.  Grand Rapids:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

 [7] Cochran, Evangelical Feminism:  a History, p. 2.

 [8] Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant To Be:  Biblical Feminism for Today, preface, p. xii.

 [9] Ibid., p. 15.

[10] Ibid., p. 68-75.

[11] Ibid., p, 77, 103.

 [12] Ibid., p. 176.

 [13] Ibid., p. 176.

 [14] Ibid., p. 176-177.

 [15] Ibid., p. 160.

[16] Ibid., p. 69.

[17] Carl Henry, Evangelicals in Search of Identity (Waco, TX:  Word Books, 1976), p. 54.

[18] Cochran, Evangelical Feminism:  a History, p. 54.

[19] Ibid., p. 24.

 [20] Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant To Be:  Biblical Feminism for Today, preface, p. 29.

[21] See G.K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism. (Wheaton, IL:  Crossway Books, 2008).

[22] Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant To Be:  Biblical Feminism for Today, preface, p. 296-297.

 [23] Ibid., p. 297.

 [24] Ibid., preface, p. ix.

[25] William Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals:  Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), loc. 279 (e-book).

[26] Ibid., loc. 793 (e-book).

 [27] Cochran, Evangelical Feminism:  a History, p. 2.

 [28] Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant To Be:  Biblical Feminism for Today, p. 9.

 [29] Social justice and liberation theology are tied to the social gospel.  Other theologies involved in the movement include replacement theology, eschatology, and the kingdom of God on earth.

 [30] Ibid., preface, p. xii.

 [31] See Walter Rauschenbush’s (considered the father of the social gospel) books Christianity and the Social Status, Christianizing the Social Order, and Theology for the Social Gospel.  These books are available free on archive.org.

 [32] Grant Osborne, “Hermeneutics and Women in the Church” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 20/4 (1977), p. 348.

 [33] Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female:  A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1975), p. 142.

 [34] Ben Witherington III, “Rite and Rights for Women—Galatians 3:28” New Testament Studies vol. 27/5 (1981), p. 602.

 [35] Klyne Snodgrass, “The Ordination of Women—Thirteen Years Later:  Do We Really Value the Ministry of Women?” Covenant Quarterly vol. 48/3 (1990), p. 34.

[36] Peter R. Schemm, Jr., “Galatians 3:28—Prooftext or Context?” Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood vol. 8/1 (2003), p. 25.

[37] H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York:  MacMillan Publishing Co., 1955), p. 84.

 [38] Ibid.

 [39] This passage is in the midst of a series of interrelated imperatives (Ephesians 4:17, 5:1-2, 5:7, and 5:15) which use the Greek conjunction “οὖν” which means “then, therefore.”

 [40] James Donnegan, A New Greek and English Lexicon (Boston: Hilliard, Gray & Co., 1840), p. 754.

[41] See Wayne Grudem, “The Meaning Source ‘Does Not Exist’” Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, vol. 2/5 (1997).

[42] Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), p. 4.

 [43] Ibid., p. 8.