Master's College of Theology

Galatians 3:28 and It’s Contribution to Christian Community

Michael Gunn

(To Quote: Michael Gunn, “Galatians 3:28 and Its Contribution to Christian Community,” Master’s College Theological Journal 1, no.1 (March 2011): 44-59.)

Page 44

Introduction

“So, what are we called back to? What is the Restitutionist impulse that should continue to characterize the contemporary church? Simply put, it is to find that the faith and courage to live the dangerous memories of the early church. These include….. The radical egalitarianism of the Pauline house churches where ethnic, economic and gender barriers were broken down in Christ rather than hierarchical churches where women cannot lead, the poor are not welcomed, and our ethnic brothers and sisters cannot find a spiritual home.”[1]

The above quote came from Dr. Ringma’s professor of mission at Regent College, Vancouver Canada. It was an article that I found fascinating and very helpful, but it was an idea that sent me into contemplation in regard to community what he calls “radical egalitarianism.” It is obviously influenced by Galatians 3:28, which is cited by almost every book that I have consulted in regards to community as an important factor in the building of Christian community and a key antecedent for egalitarianism in the ecclesia. It is this “Radical egalitarianism,” particularly as it is expressed in the Galatians context that I would like to explore in this tome, and come to some conclusions in regard to its importance and the task of leadership roles within the community.

I will begin by affirming 2 key presuppositions that I write this paper with; First, I am not necessarily an “Egalitarian”[2] when it comes to roles in the church. I also however, do not take a hierarchical position, as many in the

Page 45

former position appear to assume is the only other alternative. I take a “Complimentarian”[3] position, which acknowledges equality and gifting, yet responds to biblical truths differently than does the egalitarian adherents regarding gender roles. Although this debate will certainly be a key to determining conclusions, it is not in the scope of this paper to be exhaustive in regards to this debate, but to see how this concept of Galatians 3:28 and “Radical Egalitarianism, relates to the building of Christian community.

Secondly, I come from a very pastoral point of view, since I am a pastor who has planted 4 churches in the past 20 years. This subject is relevant, and important. I believe that it would be a lot easier to change my understanding of this passage, but I am constrained by the word of God, and the Spirit’s leading in my understanding of it. I know that any decision regarding this important topic has enormous affect on the people I pastor and the church’s understanding of community. As a pastor, I desire to see all of my people, male and female, flourish with all of the gifts, and all of the ministries available to members of the community of God. In this paper, I will attempt to:

First, take a look at the “Christopraxis-Hermeneutical Criterion” of Ray Anderson.[4] His book was challenging and rewarding, and I believe it relates to this topic in a way that is pertinent to this thesis.

Secondly, I would then like to do a biblical study on Galatians 3:28 searching particularly for its historical intent within the context of the letter.

Thirdly, I would like to look at each segment (Cultural, Social and Sexual Mandates) and connect them to their importance in the building of Christian community.[5] For this I will refer to some of the important voices in the dialogue.

Lastly, I would like to make an evaluative statement in regard to Galatians 3:28 and its contribution to building Christian community in the 21^st century.

1. “Christopraxis and the Hermeneutical Criterion”

According to Ray Anderson, “Christopraxis is the continuing ministry of Christ through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.”[6] This idea grounds all of our theological reflection in God’s intended “Telos”

Page 46

(End purpose). Christopraxis is Christ’s ongoing ministry moving His bride (The church) to develop their theology as they grow and the Spirit leads. To this Anderson writes, “Praxis is an action that includes the telos, or final meaning and character of truth. It’s an action in which the truth is discovered through action.”[7] For Anderson this means that our understanding of God’s word is guided by Christ through the Holy Spirit. Truth cannot remain abstract, but it must be applied, and it must be interpreted through the humanity of Christ, full of mercy and compassion. For Anderson, this has a profound affect on community building. Christopraxis includes the “Humanity of God” (Christ’s Incarnation and subsequent resurrection) at its foundation, which steers it’s hermeneutic and ethic, thus the, “the resurrected Jesus as the living Lord is a continuing hermeneutical criterion for interpreting the Word of God.”(Emphasis mine)[8] This involves using Christ’s resurrection as the hermeneutical criterion for interpreting theology in a particular setting, culture and time. As we use Christ, armed with an eschatological purpose, as an interpretive tool, we create sort of a fluid movement of God’s will for a given time and purpose. This hermeneutic through the direction of the Spirit of Christ on the interpreter begins to unpack God’s intention laid out in a seminal “Biblical antecedent”[9] realized as God works in the life of the church. According to the author, Galatians 3:28 has set the framework for destroying divisions created by ethnic diversity, socio-economic inequity and patriarchal hegemony. I would agree in full with this premise, as I will promulgate such a view in the body of this paper. I also believe that this type of “Radical egalitarianism” is necessary for biblical community to take place. I also will say that this hermeneutic, which appears to be the frame-work for defaulting to an egalitarian position, can be dangerous for a couple of reasons, reasons that the author himself appears to pick up on.

First, I believe it can lead to a radical deconstruction or revisioning of scripture based on social bias. Anderson acknowledges this potential when he writes,

Page 47

     “Those who would seek to use the resurrection of Jesus as a hermeneutical principle that gives permission
       to reinterpret the Scripture in order to make it more congenial to ‘modern’ or ‘contemporary’ concerns
       will find no basis in what has said above. Quite the opposite.”[10]

There is no doubt that the author isn’t trying to add to, or ignore scripture, but his hermeneutic does have the potential for an imposition of hermeneutical principle that “Controls the exegetical task.”[11] He wants badly to exegete scripture, and let it say what it says, and then reinterpret in light of the “Work of God in the church today.”[12] However that seems to beg the question, what is the “Work of God” in the church today? How do we determine the accuracy of this interpretation? How do we “Know” what God is doing in the church? Is it purely experiential, and every new “Movement” of God is qualified as a “Work of God?” Also, are role issues in the Christian community, which ostensibly appear to be coincidently connected to western individualism, trans-cultural? Are we guilty of abstracting dogmatic principles based on the “hermeneutical criterion” of the resurrection of Jesus, to the community of Christ?

Secondly, Anderson’s concept of “Biblical antecedent,”[13] while appreciated, can also be socially, as well as personally biased. Slave traders believed they had a biblical antecedent in Genesis 9 to continue their atrocities. The gay revisionists also believe they have numerous antecedents to support their assumptions regarding biblical sexuality and orientation (Jonathan’s and David’s relationship to name one). Excommunicated Bishop John Shelby Sponge expounds in this direction when he writes, “The thorn in the flesh that plagued Paul, that power to which his body said yes even when his mind said no, was that he was himself a deeply repressed, self-rejecting gay man.”[14]

Ray Anderson contributes immensely to a passionate structuring of biblical application and community, and he has tried to address some of these questions in his book, but I believe for the above considerations (And his lack of convincing evidence), we need to be cautious in how we apply this criterion in the context of this paper and the structuring of biblical community.

Page 48

2. Biblical Study of Galatians 3:28

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave, nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”^[15]

                                                                                    (Emphasis mine)

There is no doubt that any exegetical endeavor can fall awry into social biases and theological assumptions. I do not deny this nor ignore it. Without falling into the postmodern trap of “Everything is an interpretation.”[16] I do think that hermeneutics involves some sort of cultural lens by which we interpret and apply the Word of God. This is why I believe that the above discussion is meaningful and helpful in constructing a biblical concept of community using the above verse. With that said, the exegetical question I want to explore here is what significance does Galatians 3:28 play in the formulation of Christian community, and what, if any, limitations does it have?

We must begin in locating the context for this text in the letter. Gordon Fee (A staunch defender of egalitarianism) cautions the reader from making quick conclusions due to “Problems” in the reading of Galatians.[17] He sees at least 4 problems in our reading of the text.

1.      It is difficult to determine the identity of all 3 parties involved.

2.      The letter is a heated polemic rather than a rational conversation.

3.      Because of  number 2, a lot of the rhetoric is “Overstated.”

4.      The construction of Paul’s opponent’s arguments are  suspect.

With the above in mind, he concludes that the primary issue in Galatians is the right of the Gentiles to be full members of the church, without “Submitting to Jewish identity markers.”[18]

Fee continues,

        “Paul is adamant that the Gentiles do not have to conform to the old covenant boundary
         markers/identity symbols, in order to belong to the new covenant people of God. The three
         primary markers were circumcision, food laws, and the keeping of special days.”[19]

There doesn’t seem to be much of a doubt that the intent of this letter is dealing with the issue of how do the Gentiles fit into the community of the Jewish believers. N.T. Wright adds, “The problem Paul addresses in

Page 49

Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains a relationship with God…The problem he addresses is: ‘Should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not’”[20] The book’s intent is the symbols of justification in the new covenant, and not a treatise on role distinction in the community of God. Anderson admits that though this approach (seeing the book as polemic regarding issues of soteriology), “Succeeds in resolving the apparent impasse in interpreting the Pauline texts regarding the role of women,” it appears to perform an, “Exegetical surgery whereby the benefits of being in Christ are excised from the role functions of serving Christ in the church…Male and female (And I would assume Greeks and slaves too) would have to operate outside of the benefits of Christ.”[21]  Gordon Fee echoes this when he writes, “It has often been argued against this point that this it is a soteriological text…So it is, but to divorce soteriology from ecclesiology in Paul is theologically disastrous. Salvation in Paul’s view has not to do with God’s populating between heaven with countless individuals, but with creating a people for his name through Christ and the Spirit.”[22] Mardi Keyes adds to this saying, “I would agree that the primary meaning of the text has to do with our relationship with God…But the New Testament is clear that this theological truth did indeed have profound equalizing implications for ‘Relations among people in the world.’”[23]

I think Anderson’s, Fee’s and Keyes’ points are well taken, but does this mean that in interpreting the text the issue in hand is not in determining the historical setting, but in interpreting its application for the church today? I am in full agreement that this soteriological passage does affect the nature and structure of the church, but not in such a way that structures and roles within the community are formulated and defined. Nor in any way do we have to conclude as does Anderson that women, slaves and gentiles would “Have to operate outside of the benefits of Christ.” This is hyperbole and overreaction. It simply shows that Galatians intent is not ecclesiological restructuring.

Although the words of verse 28 “Do not demand to be closely joined in thought to any specific element of what immediately precedes,”[24] it

Page 50

is safe to say that it is closely linked to verses 26 and 27, which locate our connection to God as “Sons of God through faith.” It appears then from its context that the crux of this passage is in matters pertaining to salvation and to the fact that we are one in Christ no matter what our social, cultural or sexual status is (see too Ephesians 2:14-15).

There are some commentators that believe that this passage is an early Christian confession that pre-dates Paul.[25] Only the Jew-Gentile issue is pertinent to Galatians, but it is possible that Paul used it to combat ancient attitudes towards Gentiles, ‘Boors’ (Peasant/Slave) and women.[26]

pa,ntej ga.r u`mei/j ei-j evste evn Cristw/| VIhsou/ (pantes gar humeis heis este en Christō Iēsou-“For you are all one in Christ Jesus”)

Although ei-j (heis-One) can be taken either distributively or inclusively, it may be best to take the latter having the sense that, “All those in Jesus Christ merge into one personality,”[27] since it appears to provide a “Middle term between the assertion of verse 16,… and that of verse 29.” [28] Being “In Christ” emphasizes “That Paul views the elimination of these antitheses from the standpoint of redemption in Christ, while the context clearly shows that the primary emphasis of the verse is on unity, and not equality.” [29] The masculine “One” points to a corporate unity connecting verse 16 with verse 29.

Thus after looking at this verse from a biblical point of view, there is no doubt that it affirms the full unity of Jew/Gentile, Slave/Freeman and Male/Female in Christ. I believe that within the context of Galatians there are social implications as a result. Subsequently the Bible is replete with incidents of unity within the church community, seeing men and women praying, prophesying, serving, etc. (see Luke 8:1-3; Matthew 28:1-7; Acts 18:26; 21:7-9; Romans 16:1-16). I believe as a pastor, I must do everything I can to help equip men and women, lower income and upper income, and people of every race in the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ. With that said, Galatians has next to nothing to say regarding offices in the church, and can not be used as a foundation for ecclesiastical structures.

However, the only way to conclude that this passage can be used to dictate form/structure, is by applying Anderson’s “hermeneutical criterion,” not from a study of the text itself. 

Page 51

3. The Importance of Each Sub-Division of Galatians 3:28 to Christian Community

After reviewing the textual aspect of this verse, we don’t want to jump to any rash conclusion and become guilty of proof-texting to prove our point, but it does appear that this verse, in its context, was important to Christian community then, as it is today. In this section, I would like to explore how the 3 sub-divisions of this verse contribute to the idea of Christian community. For the sake of clarity I choose to use the three sub-divisions used by Scot McKnight in his commentary on the book of Galatians. The cultural mandate, the social mandate, and the sexual mandate.”[30] It is interesting to note that this verse (With its emphasis “In Christ”) seems to re-right the effects of the fall, by creating a new mandate for believers to follow in their communities.

3.1. The Cultural Mandate

“There is neither Jew nor Greek.” In Genesis, Adam was given the mandate to “Be fruitful” which obviously included “And multiply,” but it was more than a physical mandate. It was a multiplication of God’s goodness through the “multiplication” of the nations. We see this idea being formulated in Genesis 12, and subsequently played out through God’s redemptive history. From the beginning God intended humanity to live in unity and diversity. This harmony would reflect the heart of the Trinity, and glorify God. This is in reality the crux of the argument in Galatians. The gentile believer did not need to become Jewish in order to be “In Christ.” Cultural, racial and ethnic diversity are important to the health of a Christian community, and recovered in the “Christ act.” Obviously this speaks to a multi-cultural environment like most of North America. This was true of many of the New Testament environments like Antioch. Revelation 5:9, 10 is another biblical antecedent depicting the reality of heaven as a rainbow of races, language and ethnicity. It is way too easy for the church to become comfortable in a mono-cultural atmosphere, and not be stretched to grow in understanding the gospel through the lens of other cultures, while enjoying the diversity of God’s creation in community.

Page 52

Robert Bank rightly asserts that,

“Paul’s thinking does not begin with the differences that divide people from one another but with the differences that divide all people from God. He describes the Christian community as uniting all (irrespective of nationality. social position or gender) who acknowledge the death and resurrection of Christ, experience the power of the Holy Spirit, and look forward to the coming of God’s kingdom.”[31]

The Christian community should be a place that understands that we are all separated from God apart from Christ, and in need of unity rather than division. Unfortunately we tend to be known more for what we are against, than the positive aspect of what we are for. There has been much ethnic and cultural struggle in the name of Christ, where in reality the church should be at the forefront of culture as the gateway to peace, uniting the two groups into one (see Ephesians 2:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:17-20). Our world appears to becoming more fractured in the midst of globalism, and the Christian community can be the front runner in its witness to the world of its acceptance of people based on love, and not on race or ethnicity.

3.2. The Social Mandate

“There is neither slave nor free.” In Genesis Adam was told to “Subdue evil” (Genesis 1:28) and “Serve” the creation (Genesis 2:15). We were intended to uphold the righteousness of God. Ray Anderson rightly asserts that this is rediscovered in the “Humanity of God” in the person of Jesus Christ.[32] Galatians reminds us that those that are less privileged are one in Christ. The slavery in the time of this writing was vastly different from the slavery that dominated Europe and North America in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. However, it was still demeaning to be a slave, and the ancient world saw upwards of 335 million of its population in slavery. [33] This verse reminds us that both slave and free are brothers in Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:21-24; Philemon 16). Paul did not call for the abolition of slavery, but he did seem to create an atmosphere, “That would eventually lead to the abolition of slavery throughout the whole world.”[34] It seems evident throughout the scripture that the Christian community needs to be cognitive and active toward the eradication of oppression and poverty within our Christian communities. This doesn’t appear to be an option for

Page 53

community, but a mandate. Jesus leads the way for this within His earthly ministry, and His teachings in places like Matthew 25 and Luke 4, that directly connect His gospel with the social mandate found in connection with verses like Isaiah 58-61, and calls the Christian community to a social responsibility that includes loving those that are too feeble and too unlovely to be noticed, and advocated for. At the heart of the gospel, evidenced by the plethora of scriptural support for its mandate, is the church’s presence in the axis of oppression; an oppression that is exacerbated by neglect and ignorance.

3.3. The Sexual Mandate

“There is neither male nor female.” Genesis clearly indicates the essential equality of humanity created both male and female (Genesis 1:27). Galatians reminds the church that women are equal in the body of Christ. The third mandate is the one with the most controversy and misunderstanding in our churches today. In the New Testament it is clear that women had a huge role in the community of the early church. The women no doubt prayed and prophesied (1 Corinthians 11; Acts 21:19). We see women like Phoebe and Priscilla with prominent roles as servants (Deacons) of Christ (Romans 16:1-3; Acts 18:26). Women had access to all the blessings of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 12-14; Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 3:16). Like the need for interaction with other ethnic cultures to gain a fuller understanding of the body of Christ, we need to be connected to our creation essence as “male and female” to begin to understand what it means to be human “In Christ.” Dr. Ringma clearly highlights this by stating that,

“This rereading has brought to the fore the significant role of women in the Jesus movement (Luke 8, verses 1 to 3); their witness to the resurrection (Matthew 28, verses 1 to 7); their prophetic role in the early church (Acts 21, verses 7 to 9); their role in the early house churches (Acts 18, verses 26 and Romans 16, verses 3 to 5), and their significant role in the Pauline mission (Romans 16, versus 1 to 16). What these verses and others indicate is that the early Christian movement was not predicated on the solo role of men….a more careful reading indicates that the part that women played is everywhere significant. It is as significant in the Jesus movement as in the Pauline mission.”[35]

Page 54

While I’m not sure if we need a “Rereading” of scripture to come to the above conclusions, the statement is airtight, and a reality of the way Christian community ought to look like. Both men and women have made fantastic contributions to the forming of Christian community, and for that we can be thankful to God for redeeming His image in His body. We are not truly human until we are male and female, and we are not truly the body of Christ, until we reflect this Trinitarian idea into our communities.

Evaluation and Conclusion

As we have seen, Galatians 3:28 is an important verse in the formation of Christian community. It reminds us of the fact that “In Christ,” we are one. When we come to the communion table we come i[1]n absolute equality, and on equal grounds in spite of our ethnicity, social status or gender.  In this sense we are mutually submissive to one another, and able to contribute and learn from one another. It is imperative that the Christian community is built around this respect and love.

With that said, I conclude that the limitations of Galatians 3:28 are evident. It does not affect structural aspects of the community, and role distinctions do not reflect negatively on equality any more than obvious distinctions in race, economic status and gender do. The Christian community is called to embrace diversity, while recognizing our unity in Christ. We do not want to obliterate the beauty of God’s created diversity, and the distinctions I believe He intended. In order to be fully human we must be both male and female, which compliment one another and complete humanity as God intended, not morph the community into some sort of androgynous equality. Miroslav Volf is correct in using the Trinity as a model for community, but he is wrong to make the assumption that roles are non-distinct.[36] He, like many other authors, default to a bashing of the hierarchical position if one disagrees with his version of egalitarianism.[37] I think this is misguided and a straw-man approach to the discussion on community, and not helpful in the dialogue. While he is aiming at a “Non-hierarchical” doctrine of the Trinity, he seems to fail to realize the role subordination plays within the godhead. Biblical submission is not demeaning, but creates order and harmony within the structures/institutions

Page 55

as God intends. The complimentary community is closer to that type of community that we see in Pauline house churches. I agree with Robert banks who says:

“Paul’s remarks do not imply that differences between groups disappear as a result of what has now happened. As his comments elsewhere indicate, even within the new community forged by Christ, Jews and Greeks continue to exist alongside one another as Jews and Greeks, as do slave and free, men and women. He does not deny the continuing legitimacy of national, social and gender differences-Paul is no advocate of a universal, classless, and unisex society-he merely affirms that these differences do not affect one’s relationship with Christ and membership in the community. There is an egalitarian strain in Paul’s pronouncement, but it is secondary. He is more interested in the unity the gospel brings than its equality, and in this unity diversity is preserved rather than uniformity imposed.”[38]

Ultimately it does come down to, as Dr. Ringma writes, “Whether one likes it or not, the reader has to make some choice whether the Galatian material or that of the Pastoral Epistles is to be the dominant image.”[39] Since I believe in the unity of the Bible as a hermeneutical rule, I believe that each passage needs to be interpreted in the light of the other. If this is true, and there is harmony in the text, I believe it constructs our answer. The Galatian material mandates that we are equal in essence, in Christ. The Pastoral Epistles begin to shape the complimentary roles we all play as ministers of Jesus Christ. I do not believe that differing roles create destructive hierarchical systems. Systems work best within the complimentary model where everyone operates equally in their functions in the system for the sake of the mission. Identity is found as Galatians 3:28 reminds us, “In Christ.” Roles do not dictate identity and essence; they exist for organization and mission. We are not inferior in essence to anyone in the church or family because of submission, anymore than a private is inferior to a sergeant, or Christ is to the father.

            So, in the end, the Christian community needs to be built on both a “radical egalitarianism” and a “radical submission” which best exemplifies the Trinity as our foundation to reflecting the glory of God to a dying world. This I believe can speak to a world that seems to default to either personal

Page 56

rights, or oppressive hegemonies, and call them to a “New way to be human,” in a community born in equality, and desiring to reconcile people groups to God and one another regardless of race, social status or gender.

Bibliography

Anderson, Ray S. The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis. 1st ed. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2001.

Banks, Robert. Paul's Idea of Community. 2nd. ed. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. Reprint, 4th.

Burton, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Vol. 41. 52 vols. 2nd ed. The International Critical Commentary, ed. Plummer Driver, Briggs. Edinburgh: T&T Clark LTD, 1988.

Calvin, John. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1+2 Thessalonians, 1+2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Translated by William Pringle. Vol. 21. 22 vols. 2nd ed. Calvin's Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003.

Fee, Gordon. Listening to the Spirit in the Text. 1st ed. Vancouver and Grand Rapids: Regent Publishing and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

________. Bibl 662 Galatians, Regent Audio Class. Vancouver: Regent College, 2001.

Fox-Genovese Elizabeth, Stanley Grenz, Mardi Keyes, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen. Women and the Future of the Family. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Fung, Ronald. Galatians. Vol. 8. 16 vols. 1st ed. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1988.

Hancock, Maxine. Christian Perspectives on Gender, Sexuality and Community. 1st ed. Vancouver: Regent College Publisher, 2003.

Page 57

Longenecker, Richard N. Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians. Vol. 41. 52 vols. 1st ed. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Luther, Martin. Commentary on Galatians. Translated by Erasmus Middleton. 3rd ed., ed. John Prince. Grand Rapids: Kregel Classics, 1999. Reprint, 1850.

McKnight, Scot. The NIV Application Commentary: Galatians. Vol. 32. 43 vols. 1st ed. The NIV Application Commentary: From Biblical Text...To Contemporary Life, ed. Terry Muck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Ringma, Charles. "The Slow March of God." Crux XXXVII, no. 2 (2001): 7.

________. Catch the Wind: The Shape of the Church to Come, and Our Place in It. 2nd ed. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003.

Silva, Moises. Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001.

Sponge, John Shelby. Why Christians Must Change or Die. San Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1998.

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. 1st ed. Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Modern Age, ed. Alan Padgett. Grand rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.

Wright, N.T. What St. Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? 2nd ed. Grand Rapids and Cincinnati: Wm. B. Eerdmans and Forward Movement Publishing, 1997.

Endnotes

[1] Charles Ringma, "The Slow March of God," Crux XXXVII, no. 2 (2001), 32 (Class handout).

[2] By egalitarian, I mean those that see no role distinction or specific differences relating to roles between male and female.

[3] The term “Complimentarian” as I am using it “Suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women, cf. Piper Grudem, ed., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 1991), IV. The issue I keep running

Page 58

up against is if you don’t assume egalitarianism in every aspect of manhood and womanhood, then you are not allowing the Spirit to use all the gifting of the church, and I believe that is nothing but polemics that do not help the dialogue regarding the issue. Equality and use of gifting is not the issue, roles within the community is.

[4] Ray S. Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis, 1st ed. (Downers Grove, Il.: Intervarsity Press, 2001).

[5] Whereas I will take a look at all three factors, I will spend the bulk of my research on the issue of gender in the church.

[6] Anderson, 29.

[7] Ibid., 49.

[8] Ibid., 87.

[9] Ibid., 111.

[10] Ibid., 101.

[11] Ibid., 96.

[12] Ibid., 99.

[13] Whereas Anderson tries to find biblical antecedents in the Old Testament he admits that, “These cases were exceptional and did not set an historical precedent.” Anderson, 110.

[14] John Shelby Sponge, Why Christians Must Change or Die (San Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1998), xiv.

^[15]The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. 2001 (Galatians 3:28). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[16] Attributed to Michael Foucault. Source has been lost.

[17] Gordon Fee, Bibl 662 Galatians, Regent Audio Class (Vancouver: Regent College). Tape B

[18] Ibid. Tape B

[19] Gordon Fee, Listening to the Spirit in the Text, 1st ed. (Vancouver and Grand Rapids: Regent Publishing and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), 58.

[20] N. T. Wright, What St. Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids and Cincinnati.: Wm. B. Eerdmans and Forward Movement Publishing, 1997).

[21] Anderson, 97.

[22] Fee, Listening to the Spirit in the Text.

[23] Stanley Grenz Fox-Genovese Elizabeth, Mardi Keyes, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Women and the Future of the Family (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 65-66.

[24] Ernest Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ed. Plummer Driver, Briggs, 2nd ed., 52 vols., The International Critical Commentary, vol. 41 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark LTD, 1988).

[25] Ronald Fung, Galatians, ed. Gordon Fee, 1st ed., 16 vols., The New Internatinal Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1988). pg. 175

Page 59

[26] Richard N. Longenecker, Word Biblical Commentary: Galatians, ed. Ralph P. Martin, 1st ed., 52 vols., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 41 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 157.

[27] Burton, 208.

[28] Ibid., 208.

[29] Fung, 176.

[30] Scot McKnight, The Niv Application Commentary: Galatians, ed. Terry Muck, 1st ed., 43 vols., The Niv Application Commentary: From Biblical Text...To Contemporary Life, vol. 32 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 200-201.

[31] Robert Banks, Paul's Idea of Community, 2nd. ed. (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994; reprint, 4th), 110.

[32] Anderson, 313.

[33] McKnight, 200.

[34] Ibid., 201.

[35] Charles Ringma, Catch the Wind: The Shape of the Church to Come, and Our Place in It, 2nd ed. (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003), 103-104.

[36] Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity, ed. Alan Padgett, 1st ed., Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Modern Age (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 2.

[37] Ibid., 4.

[38] Banks, 114.

[39] Ringma, Catch the Wind: The Shape of the Church to Come, and Our Place in It,102.