Evangelical Feminism

Tim,

Thanks for the good review. I sat in on a seminary class this fall in which these issues came up, and saw first hand that this really isn't just about men and women, it's about the Bible.

And Hayden, a good warning to the "readers." Oh, what can be done to stay the tide of uninformed emotionalism when is comes to this matter?

The issue, of course, is Scriptural. If the trend in egalitarian churches was *toward* greater orthodoxy and faithfulness, that would not in itself make egalitarianism right. I can't pretend to be unconcerned with the trends Grudem describes, but the real issue for me isn't, "What has happened in some contemporary denominations that embrace egalitarianism?" It is, "What do the Scriptures say?"

Statistically, you'd have to do some work. Is there a causal relationship OR a correlation between egalitarianism and a move toward liberalism? I think it might be hard to prove a causal relationship.

I imagine I could muster some of the same arguments in support of circumcision and dietary laws - but to be sure I'd have to read Grudem's book, something I will just have to do!

Thanks for a stimulating post, Tim.

One comment:

Even as I sit here typing, Piper & Grudem's Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood mere inches from my face, I'm wondering about the practical aspects of daily living out true biblical manhood and womanhood in North American culture.

I've contacted the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a few times with appropriate questions about meeting the standards they uphold given cultural realities in North America today. I was shocked at the terse responses I received. Most unhelpful and bordering on rude.

I live in a rural area with some extreme pockets of poverty. Almost all those families have both parents working, typically in menial jobs outside the home (or trailer, as the case usually is). Given that the standard upheld by the CBMW has mom at home with the kids, I queried the CBMW about practical ways they as an organization were working to alleviate the need for poor families to have both parents working outside the home and I was basically told to take a hike. Needless to say, any respect I had for them went out the window.

I think this frames the issue well. Everyone wants to uphold a biblical standard, but too many are unwilling to do the hard work to make it a reality. This responsibility cuts both ways, too. The family with both parents away from home bears responsibility, as does the parachurch ministry calling them (often relentlessly) to adopt the biblical ideal. It is one thing to call for a greater hewing to the biblical standard and quite another to bind someone with it like a millstone and cast them into the sea. I think we too often do the latter when we call people to a standard yet give them no help to meet it.

In many cases, our failure to live a truly Christian lifestyle results in less than ideal practice (or downright sinful, as might be the case). And not just because we let sin in. Perhaps the failure comes from us ignoring meeting the needs of others in the name of Christ, instead of purposefully tolerating the unorthodox. My own experience shows that it's not always a dropping of our doctrinal guard that lets in error, but the failure to live out the Gospel in praxis. Only after our praxis fails does the doctrinal rot set in.

While I would never go as far as calling God mother, God is not inherrently male. Father is just ones of the ways God is referred to. If men AND women are created in God's image, God is not a man. God is beyond earthly descriptions and beyond gender.Additionally, while I believe that men should hold the position of Senior Pator, I see nothing wrong with women pastoring children, youth, and other women. I have read from the CBMW that even they believe that it would be appropriate and Biblical for women to hold these positions. Finally, just because I am currently studying to be a youth pastor does not mean I do not value the uniqueness of men and their headship within marriage. It doesn't mean that I condone homosexuality, far from it. I, however, don't feel I need to submit to every male in the same way, and it is appropriate and biblical for me to teach boys who are high school and under. You can read more about this in an article entitled "But What Should Women Do in the Church?" from CBMW News, Nov 1995.

Angela - you should read the book. Grudem gets into the very way God has chosen to identify himself in the scriptures. Also, Grudem is careful to make this statement:

"A number of egalitarian leaders today grew up in some extremely strict, harsh, even oppressive environments that taught "male headship" from the Bible but did so without love or without respect and honor for the equal value of women in our churches and before God, and without promoting and honoring the valuable ministries of women in their church."

David,

Since it's a collection of writings, you'll find that the book varies in its hard and fast adherence to the issue. You'll also note that it says that women should never make more money than their husbands, and I know this to be the case in many poorer households simply because the job market favors women workers with few skills versus men with few skills.

When I contacted CBMW, they made it clear that the male single wage-earner family was their preferred mode. In two wager-earner households, which they confessed was not the ideal, they expressed that women should never out-earn their husbands. What they are doing as a ministry to ensure that possibility doesn't occur baffles me. They could point to no initiative they sponsored to ensure men were the primary breadwinners.

DLE seems angry.

Another book that is helpful in this discussion is Women's Ministry in the Local Churchj by Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt. It does a great job of showing how women can and should serve the church (hint: it is more than making cookies and taking care of the nursery).

I'm sorry Angela, but neither my husband nor myself would want you, as a woman, teaching our teenage sons in a youth group.Boys need men as their role models and mentors and teachers-not women.

Tim,

No, not angry. Just bothered that sometimes we tell people how they should live without giving them any help in doing what we preach. We have a tendency to do that in Evangelicalism and it only drives people away (or loads them with guilt) when they fail at applying our message.

As to my call to have people state what's right and what's wrong, I think that's valuable to understanding where we're coming from. Jabbok, for instance, put it all on the line by saying women should not teach teenage males for fear of abrogating this injunction:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. --1 Timothy 2:12-14 ESV

If we take Jabbok's application of this to its logical ends, I would suspect that no mother would be able to speak to her teenage son for fear of teaching him something. I guess we should also not permit any woman to own or run a business for fear that she might exercise authority over male employees. Goes back to what I was saying about women working outside the home. If they were to have males answering to them, they'd be violating Paul's injunction constantly.

The SBC recently ran afoul of this when they fired a highly-respected female prof for fear that she was teaching men and exercising authority over them. I guess if she's out, then you'd have to scrap all female teachers in all secondary schools. It's possible to do, I guess.

While I agree that this can be a slippery slope issue, we've got to be enormously careful that in our effort to keep from sliding down the hill, we don't pitch backward off the cliff at the top.

Dave,

Any Christian organization that makes truth claims must not only be able to back them up doctrinally, but also with reasonable praxis.

Take, for instance, the whole issue of abortion. Christians can rail against abortion all they want, but if they don't do anything to help unwed mothers and women in trouble beyond telling them not to abort their unborn children, that's not being the Kingdom of God to people. All the years I protested in front of abortion clinics came home to roost with me one day when I realized that I wasn't lifting a finger to help any of those moms who got scared off by my protest. My actions were self-righteous, not redemptive to others.

If a ministry comes in to a place and tells people they're doing something wrong, but then doesn't do anything practical to help those same people, it's not the Kingdom of God. It's just talk.

One of the reasons the church is facing so many moral and doctrinal assaults from within directly stems from our inability to address these issues without.

Let's take another issue. The current homosexual lobby got its power from the feminist movement. But I would contend that if Christians hadn't completely ignored ministry to homosexuals decades ago, we wouldn't be fighting a lot of the battles we are now. The Church's utter lack of care for homosexuals sent them running to whatever group would listen. We weren't listening. The feminists were.

We weren't listening when massive upheavals in our culture due to the Industrial Revolution changed the roles of women and tore away traditional work and lifestyles. So they went to the feminists.

I can't help but think if we had not been so ensconced in our ivory towers, we wouldn't be facing so many assaults from within. Rather than going out to deal with real people facing real problems and real temptations, we walled ourselves into the castle. Now instead of possessing the land, we're finding our castle stormed, asking how to get back to Camelot, but forgetting that we left the very people attacking us out of the Kingdom.

Let's not keep making that same mistake. Whether we can undo our past sloth, I don't know. But we need a gut check on how we dropped the ball and let Satan pick it up.

I have read Grudem's book. Yet....I have a difficulty with it.

However, before I say my difficulties with it, I must stress that I adhere to the belief that women should not be ordained. Having said that...here are my difficulties.

It is obvious that God placed a form of hirearchy within His family. Yet, with the exception of Paul's statement that "he does not allow women to speak in the assembly", scripture generally remains silent on the issue. While Gruden attempted, and failed to show, definitive scriptural evidence to support his idea, he did succeed in describing the only ideas in scripture that lend themselves to the suggestion of a "woman's place".

I use most of those descriptions on purpose. Paul's statement was not written in the emperical, ie: not as a command from God, but instead as what "Paul does not allow." The reason behind this statement is a subject for debate, and it could be argued from several different stances...all as valid as the next.

I would have to say, that from a general perspective, most of the themes involving women in authority generally place them in a low postion, and yet....within Jewish society this was a norm. Scripture supports the idea that christian, or Godly men, need to treat their wives with great respect. Not only because of the requirements as the "man", but because she is submitting to man/her husband, not because of our great wisdom...but out of obedience to God, and for no other reason. When you read of the "Proverbs 31 woman", this is not a woman who cannot take care of herself. Rather, her hard work is what lends credence to her husbands...things.

Women are 80% likely to out live their husbands; they give 80% of the nurture to their children; their hand eye coordination is higher and faster than a man's; they have greater endurance; they handle stress better than men; they have two chromosomes to correct for genetic defects...and the list goes on. Yet, they are the weaker sex? Satan spoke to Eve, with Adam right there...

I suppose what I am saying is, perhaps we men need to reconsider our lofty position. A position that merely forces us to be responsible for all the decisions of our family, but in reality gives no real power; except what a woman who is obeying God is giving us, by her obedience to that same God.

Oh, Dan, but you do make speeches. For a moment I wasn't sure if I was at Tim's or Cerulean Sanctum!

Many of your arguments are quite polemic and characterized by such inflammatory rhetoric that it is difficult to get to the wheat because of all the chaff. Your argumentation also leaves a bit to be desired at times.

On the one hand we have folks all giddy over egalitarian views, then we have folks who insist women shouldn't even speak in church, asking their husbands afterwards to interpret. Over here, we have mutually submissive couples and over there the federal husbands.

I think we lose our limits with such a high-level overview of this issue.

I haven't read Grudem's book but I did read Tim's post. I didn't consider it a "high-level overview of this issue" but a fairly detailed review of the book. But even if Tim had only provide an stratospheric view of the book, that doesn't mean that the book is guilty of the same.

I've contacted the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a few times with appropriate questions about meeting the standards they uphold given cultural realities in North America today. I was shocked at the terse responses I received. Most unhelpful and bordering on rude.

If you're going to say such accusatory and negative things about a group, you might want to back it up with some specific examples, i.e., with verbatim quotes from the responses. Otherwise we don't know if they are what you say or if you're just overly sensitive, easily shocked, and looking for an opportunity to take offense when none has been given.

It is one thing to call for a greater hewing to the biblical standard and quite another to bind someone with it like a millstone and cast them into the sea.

A flamethrower would be more subtle. Maybe just a bit hyperbolic or do you really feel that what they have done is deserving of such drastic judgment and punishment?

No, not angry.

I didn't detect any anger, although this clearly pushed your buttons. But you do come across sometimes as histrionic in these comments. Toning the emotionalism down a notch or two might help: emotions are effective if all you want to do is whip people into an emotional frenzy, but not so much if you're hoping to persuade them.

If we take Jabbok's application of this to its logical ends, I would suspect that no mother would be able to speak to her teenage son for fear of teaching him something.

This is neither a logical conclusion, a logical application, or a fair representation of Jabbok's comment (not that I necessarily agree with his anecdotal argument). Besides, your argument is not with Jabbok but with Paul.

Any Christian organization that makes truth claims must not only be able to back them up doctrinally, but also with reasonable praxis.

Who says? You? Jesus said we are to be perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect. The "reasonable praxis" for this would be what? Why can't someone oppose (what they believe to be) wrong teaching without curing cancer and ending world hunger? Someone who tells me that I'm headed for danger is providing a valuable service even if she cannot remove the danger. So I don't by this at all.

Enough. I'm sure you have a point somewhere in all your comments and might even be able to support it biblically, but you distract us with your (intentionally?) evocative remarks and (at times) weary us with your verbosity (although one might wonder if I have any right to say this given the length of this comment). Sometimes more is less.

At the end of the day, however, it comes down not to anecdotal evidence or what we want to be true but to what the Bible teaches. Disagree if you like, but please do so on solid exegetical and theological grounds. Otherwise we're just going to debate emotions.

Tim: Sorry about the length. Delete this if you want and I won't be offended.

In regards to the quote by CS Lewis:While it may be true that God is masculine in relation to creation, this does not make God male. Neither does it make God female. In Daniel L. Migliore's intro to Christian THeology Faith Seeking Understanding, he states "The Bible depicts God not only as a father who care for and and protects his chosen people but also as a mother who gives birth to, feeds, and comforts children (Isa 49:15, 66:12-13)." When God is described as Father, it is just that -- a description. Just as God is also described as the Rock or a Shepherd.

In reponse to Joanna, I respect your opinion about this matter. However, I see your response being more a matter of preference. As I said before, a woman working with youth is with conserative orthodoxy, and this view is supported both by the signers of the Danvers Statement and the article by Wayne Grudem. It was a journey for me to make the decision to enter Seminary, and one thing that played a role in this decision was the article Grudem wrote. Because of that, I believe that I am well within biblical standards in the pursuit of the call God has given to me. I am conservative and complementarian and Baptist, even though I am in Seminary and pursuing ministry. I have no plan to be a senior pastor. When I get married someday, I plan to lovingly submit to the authority of my husband and if God should bless me with children, they will become a priority over ministry and perhaps a new ministry. But for now I feel called to youth ministry, and I believe that God and His Word is in support of this call.Now it's time to get back to working on my sermon for my sermon delivery class. :)

"The canon of Scripture today is exactly what God wanted it to be, and it will stay that way until Christ returns". -Wayne Grudem

Thanks for the review on a book that is based on the Holy Writ, from a fine teacher of the same.

I have to ask if Grudem's most recent book addresses the fact that women were foreign missionaries and preached in the 17th century in America, Holland and England as part of the Baptist and Quaker movements. Many of those women also had large families and were involved in anti-slavery protests and mission, even to the Moslems.

In the late 19th century Canadian Baptist women missionaries were among the first to attend university to gain skills such as medical training in order to become doctors and hospital adminstrators overseas. They performed equally alongside their brothers. God blessed them. If women are to be kept out of the pulpit at least acknowledge their equal phyical and moral fibre, their performance in mission, recognize that equal function of the woman in the missionfield has been to God's glory. Women are capable of equal function as Christians.

Let's not rewrite history. One of the first women to teach Greek to men in Canada was not a non-Christian but a Plymouth Brethren. Christian women were leaders not followers in feminism, for God and the church.

I would like to know if Grudem really has a grasp of the history of real Christian women. The involvement of women in mission *as equals* can be associated with the anti-slavery movement, the expansion of the church, improved social conditions in health and education and increased survival of children, prison reform, prohibition, and many other aspects of social welfare.

I have not read this book because no one has yet explained many of the oddities of Grudem's earlier books, for example, his lack of proof or credible research to document his assertion that egalitarians are unattractive to the opposite sex. How does he know this? And his treatment of Junia is textually inaccurate, unfortunately.

Hayden,

In #32 you asked a question. A question that was sort of my point. Though scripture remains rather quiet on the woman's issue....quiet but not necessarily silent....it does give a general feeling that ordination is not a thing women are to have. As far as the statements made by Paul; well, we'd be more than foolish not to take note of the things he or any other apostle said or suggested.

I suppose that, more than anything, I wanted to press home the idea that taking a single statement made by one of the apostles; especially one not given as a command; and then building upon it a whole theology is dangerous at best. Unlike his encouragement to pray, which is stated multiple times, over and over by virtually everyone of the twelve, and Jesus included.

There is no harshness, nor inflamed feelings regarding this subject, or the book in question. I just chimed in to offer my opinion and a bit more food for thought. After all, as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

God Bless.

"For man ... is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man." 1 Cor. 11:7

Both men and women are surely image-bearers of God.However Paul shows us something to ponder in this letter to the Corinthians.

I thought I would throw this out there for further study if anyone so desires.

Angela - another issue you may want to consider is, 'Why did Jesus come as the Son of God and not the daugher of God?'. i.e. when God - the 2nd person of the trinity came into the world - He came as the Son - and most conservative theologians believe that His sonship goes back before the incarnation and actually reflects something inherent in the nature of the trinity itself. The description of God as Father as opposed to mother is neither arbitrary or culture determined but a reflection of the way God Himself chose to identify Himself.

Angela,

The "image of God" is not based on gender applications, but more spiritual. In Genesis we see God breathing into us the breath of life, and at that point, as scripture states, we became living beings. It is the spirit aspect of this that ties both male and female to God while all of us share basic physical attributes.

The ability of God to create us as male and female does not detract from the fact that God describes Himself in the masculine form; both in terms of His placement as head and leader of His creations. It is obvious that He had a plan in mind as the reason for this; and we know some of it...while we puzzle out the rest.

None of this, and I believe that scripture bears this out, should detract from the value of women nor in how highly God values them. The placement of females within the Jewish culture, while not unique, was one in which women had little vlaue. I do not say this to imply that God held this view...rather it is simply a fact.

I believe scripture bears out that God has always given women a great deal of credit for their abilities and strengths....and yet, He has spicifically given them a place in the hirearchy of life that He expects them to adhere to. Not because they are less, but because He set up the way in which we should live and He expects it to be obeyed...regardless of whether we agree with His statutes, or not.

You have got to be kidding me!

Hayden,

I have disproved Grudem's Junia hyposthesis. and no one has ever suggested that Grudem backs up his assertion that egalitarian men are wimps with research. No one ever gives me a factual response. They simply answer as you do.

It doesn't matter how far Grudem went to get interview people. He admits that he didn't use lexicons to prepare for the Colorado Springs Guidelines, he is uanware that both the TNIV and the KJV have the same rendering for authentein. He even accuses the TNIV of having a novel and suspect translation when it matches the KJV.

I do not consider what he writes as backed up with homework. I can't figure it out. I am totally baffled at why people think his writing is scholarly. Take any of those points, and explain them to me.

Grudem says,

1. Egalitarians are unattractive to the opposite sex

2. Junia could be a man, for textual reasons

3. Junia could be only 'known to the apostles' not 'among the apostles' (BTW Burer has backed down on that)

4. The TNIV has a novel translation for authentein

5. The peacemakers shall be called the children of God is a novel distortion of the truth. FOr goodness sake, Luther and Tyndale thought that God had children!

6. The Liddel Scott Lexicon should be used after drafting guidelines, and not before.

David noted: "Grudem presents us with the correct attitude at the end as he points to 2 Timothy 2:24-25 "...correcting his opponents with gentleness..." Right after this, he rightly points out that many churches that hold to complementarian positions help this brand of feminism by being cowardly and silent."

Here is a quote from our complementarian friend, Wayne Grudem:“God gave men, in general, a disposition that is better suited to teaching and governing in the church, a disposition that inclines more to the rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, in general, a disposition that inclines more toward a relational, nurturing emphasis that places a higher value on unity and community in the church (v14)” (Grudem)

Translated, this means that women are not as suitable for teaching and government because they do not incline towards the rational and logical as much as men, and because in general they tend to prefer unity over pointing out doctrinal error.

I will point out that complementarianism goes far beyond what the bible says, which is my biggest concern about it. Grudem and the CBMW go out on many indefensible tangents, carelessly assessing and explaining female "inclinations", creating muddlement with theological ideas and so forth.

For instance, the above assessment of the female personality by Grudem is a direct challenge to my rationality as a woman, and should a church "hold to a complementarian position" a la Grudem, they would be right in weighing my judgment and testimony below that of a man.

Once women have been determined "in general" to have less "inclination" toward "logical analysis" than men, then our credibility is irreparably damaged as a group. Do you suppose we might have a problem with that?

I don't really see complementarianism as a biblical movement. Instead, it takes a handful of scriptures and from them fabricates a fanciful and unbiblical overall picture of women.

Grudem also advocates some very seedy methods of enforcing his ideas upon churches. When Alan Dershowitz advocated torturing people with sterilized needles down their fingernail beds, I decided that he was no longer a credible source of legal, political or moral opinion. When Grudem advocates coercive methods for bringing complementarian policies into churches, I likewise cease to view him as a credible source of opinion. Although I might still agree with him in some of his opinions.