Biblical Theology: Past, Present, and Future (I)
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 55, No. 2 – Spring 2013
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
By Alan G. Padgett. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. 151 pages. Paperback, $20.00.
In the debate over gender roles in evangelicalism, there have been few books written with a more provocative title than Alan G. Padgett’s As Christ Submits to the Church. At first glimpse, the title drips with heretical undertones, and controversy may certainly be intended with the selection of such a title. Rather than embracing full-blown heresy, Padgett, who serves as professor of systematic theology at Luther Seminary, sets out to redefine the understanding of submission in this contribution to the gender-role debate.
In the opening pages of the book, Padgett asks the central question of his work: “Does Christ submit to the church, his body and bride?” (xiii). In order to offer an affirmative response to his question, he acknowledges that a specific definition of submission is required for Christ to submit to the church. As a central tenet, he proposes two types of submission—type I refers to obedience to an external authority while type II refers to giving up power voluntarily and taking the role of a slave (xiii). It is the second type of submission that Padgett believes has bearing on his central question.
With the key concept defined in the opening pages, Padgett uses the rest of the book to give a historical overview of the gender-role debate among evangelicals, to contemplate the place of Scripture in defining roles, and to address the key Biblical passages related to submission. In so doing, he wrestles with difficult concepts, such as dominion, sex, head coverings, and justice. While these concepts are not new to the debate, covering all of them in such a brief work is an ambitious task.
Padgett’s work is very readable, and he offers clear definitions for the concepts he employs in the book. The book is clearly written from an egalitarian perspective, and the author does not attempt to disguise his presuppositions. He acknowledges that the development of the egalitarian position was influenced by the women’s rights movement of the 1960s (7) and even goes so far as to call the position “revisionist” and “influenced by modern thought” (10). On the latter, he does so by comparison to the complementarian position, claiming that it too is revisionist and modern. In essence, he makes no claim that the egalitarian position is the historical or traditional understanding of gender roles in the church. Nonetheless, he argues that it should be considered the most Biblical position.
In order to reach his conclusion that Christ does indeed submit to the church, Padgett employs some unfortunate methods that undermine his claim that egalitarianism is the most Biblical position. First, Padgett completely redefines the term “submission” for the sake of avoiding a misstep into outright heresy. Traditionally speaking, submission has generally referred to a form of obedience to authority and implied an order or hierarchy of position. When related to the classic gender roles passage found in Ephesians 5, submission has historically been understood as a wife submitting to her husband’s authority as the church submits to Christ. However, Padgett desires to make submission in Ephesians 5 mutual. In order to do so, he has to deal with the issue of Christ’s relationship to the church. Thus, a new definition of submission is necessary to avoid placing Christ under the authority of the church. The result is a definition of submission that is characterized by servanthood. Even though this is the best definition that Padgett can offer, he is still not satisfied because the book occasionally acknowledges that “mutual submission and servant leadership are not identical” (32).
Second, Padgett promotes imaginative, midrashic interpretation as his model of hermeneutics. When discussing 1 Timothy 2:8–15, the author makes two consecutive statements that appear contradictory. He first states, “I suggest that we pay careful attention once again to what the text itself says instead of to what we already believe it says” (89). At this point, the reader is led to believe that the focus of this section will be on exegesis of the words of the text. However, his very next sentence suggests, “Read carefully in its larger social and intellectual context, the teaching of Paul in this passage can be understood, but only with a bit of imagination and careful reflection” (90). He goes on to encourage imaginative, midrashic interpretation as the appropriate hermeneutic for interpreting Paul’s letters (90–94). Freed from the rigors of meaning in the words of the text, Padgett finds hermeneutical license to interpret these texts within his pre-existing belief structure—in essence, committing the very mistake he previously admonished his readers to avoid.
Finally, Padgett exhibits inconsistency in his own application of submission. Throughout the book, he painstakingly applies his version of mutual submission through servanthood to every area of life. As he draws the book to a conclusion, the author focuses his attention to the commands of Christ to love God and love one’s neighbor (127–28). He infers that believers have an obligation to abide by these two commands from Christ. In essence, Padgett places an obligation upon believers to obey an external authority. According to his definitions, this is type I submission, which he finds to be a violation of mutual submission. Padgett cannot have it both ways. Either the church submits to Christ’s commands in obedience to an outside authority, or submission is simply servant leadership.
In conclusion, Padgett’s work is a clear and readable example of the egalitarian position. He also offers an honest look at the logical implications of mutual submission for the relationship between Christ and the church. However, his work fails to deliver an internally consistent and exegetically faithful argument for egalitarianism.
