Andrew Bartlett. Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts. IVP/SPCK, 2019. See here to purchase the book.
From the back cover of the book: “Andrew Bartlett QC is based in
London and is a highly rated international arbitrator with a wide range
of experience in dispute resolution in numerous locations. He has a BA
in theology (University of Gloucestershire) and has served as an elder
and a churchwarden in various churches.”
This book weighs in on the complementarian/egalitarian debate within evangelical Christianity.
Here are some thoughts, observations, and subjective impressions:
A. While Bartlett tries to give the impression that he is
transcending the debate, Bartlett leans towards the egalitarian
perspective. When Ephesians 5:23 affirms that the husband is the head of
the wife as Christ is the head of the church, Bartlett rejects the view
that this means the husband has authority over his wife; rather, after
doing a word study on the Greek word kephale, Bartlett
concludes that the husband is head in that he nourishes and provides for
his wife. The wife responds by providing her husband with support,
which is what believers are supposed to be doing for each other in the
first place. For Bartlett, I Corinthians 11 does not posit a hierarchy
in which women are under male authority. Rather, Bartlett argues that
Paul is trying to prevent married women from attracting other men in
church services through their long hair, and men from attracting male
lovers by wearing their hair long. As far as Paul is concerned, this
violates Christ’s created order, which is significant because Christ is
the source of (not head over) man. On I Timothy 2:11-15, Bartlett does
not believe that Paul is prohibiting women from church leadership for
all time. Rather, Paul is against rich heretical women who spread false
teaching and practice witchcraft, and Paul likens that to Eve misleading
her husband. Paul encourages women to serve as wives and mothers. At
the same time, Bartlett does not think that women being saved through
childbearing means that they are saved by having kids. Bartlett refers
to two alternative possibilities: (1.) that the childbearing refers to
the birth of Christ, who saves women from the stigma and guilt of the
Fall, and (2.) that the verse is saying that God, not Artemis, protects
Christian women when they are bearing children.
B. Bartlett leans towards egalitarianism, but he still believes that
men and women are different and contribute their distinct talents and
dispositions. Women in church leadership can bring positive feminine
qualities (i.e., nurturing, compassion) to their positions. Bartlett
points out that this view is not unusual among evangelical egalitarians.
Similarly, complementarianism is rather complex, for, while it rejects
official female leadership in church, many modern complementarians are
open to female leadership in politics and business.
C. Bartlett provides relevant historical details. Against the
complementarian argument that married women in antiquity wore veils as a
public demonstration of their husband’s authority, Bartlett points out
that ancient depictions of Greco-Roman women often do not show them
wearing veils. This is relevant to debates about I Corinthians 11.
Against the argument that I Timothy 2:11-15 forbids women to teach
because women in that time were uneducated, Bartlett cites examples of
Greco-Roman women who were well-educated. Bartlett also refers to
ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman conceptions of male authority over women
in marriage, using them as a foil for what he believes is the New
Testament teaching.
D. Bartlett mentions intriguing, sometimes disturbing,
interpretations within the history of biblical interpretation. Calvin
thought that it would be illogical for women to lead men, so he stumbled
over God’s choice of the judge Deborah to lead Israel. Augustine
thought that women were helpers of men specifically because they bore
children, not due to companionship, for, if men wanted social company,
could they not get that from fellow men?
E. Bartlett made some effective arguments. Against the argument that
Adam naming Eve demonstrates his authority over her, Bartlett refers to
Hagar’s naming of God in Genesis 16:13. Obviously, Hagar did not possess
authority over God. Bartlett also refutes the complementarian argument
that Paul’s permission of women to prophesy (I Corinthians 11) refers to
private prophesying rather than prophesying in the church assembly. As
Bartlett points out, Paul’s focus in I Corinthians 11 is on what goes on
in the church assembly.
F. I Peter 3:6 states that Sarah called Abraham “lord.” Sarah does so
in Genesis 18:12, where she expresses skepticism that she will bear
children in her old age. According to Bartlett, Sarah submits to Abraham
as “lord,” not by seeing him as her boss, but rather by submitting to
God’s plan that she have offspring, as incredible as that may seem.
G. Bartlett seems to downplay the patriarchy that pervades the Bible.
In a footnote, he wrestles with Numbers 30’s statement that a man can
nullify his wife’s oath, speculating that this is a concession to human
fallenness. That may be how he accounts for all of the patriarchy that
is sanctioned in the Bible: that men, not women, can inherit property in
the Torah, etc. Bartlett does well to point out that women are not
passive doormats in the Bible: they have their own voice, and the ideal
woman in Proverbs 31 takes economic initiative in her own right. Still,
the patriarchy that pervades the Bible cannot be dodged, for women in
the Old and New Testaments were not the social equals of men.
H. Bartlett’s approach to Scripture is rather harmonizing. For
Bartlett, Paul in I Timothy 2:11-15 cannot mean that women are forbidden
to teach in church, for Paul in I Corinthians 11 accepts women
prophesying. Paul in I Timothy 2:15 does not mean that women are saved
by having children, for Paul affirms in other epistles that salvation is
by grace through faith alone. Many scholars, by contrast, hold that the
pastoral epistles and the Pauline epistles have different authors; Paul
may have been more egalitarian than the patriarchal author of the
pastorals, according to this view. That said, “Paul” in I Timothy 2:15
probably does not mean that women earn their salvation by bearing
children and thus do not need Christ as their Savior. Still, could he
have believed that childbearing and childrearing were part of the
spiritual fruit that Christian women bore in the salvation process? As
even Bartlett notes, Paul praises childrearing elsewhere in the
pastorals.
This book is clear and informative. Some of Bartlett’s arguments are
effective, and some may seem like a stretch. Still, Bartlett engages
issues that are relevant to the debate.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.