Comments on: EFBT 2.1: Men and Women in the Church

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:08:04 +0000

I think we can see this same sort of thing happening in the church today where doctrines are relaxed or dismissed because those with authority don't want people to feel bad about themselves.
That is well said. Thank you for your kind, gentle, firm remarks. May God give you courage and wisdom. em>

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:00:11 +0000

I find Grudem and the complementarian position presented above to be disingenuous. A woman can write a book about the bible, but not speak those views aloud before a mixed audience? Recently, I attended a lecture at a complementarian church the topic of which was a book written by a husband-wife team. The wife, and co-author, did not appear on stage to talk about her own book. Only the husband spoke. The whole situation was ridiculous.>>> It may have been ridiculous. In fact, the whole book that this man and his wife wrote may have been ridiculous. I suspect, though, that it was a book on family life? And that she wrote for the wives? It is very appropriate for a woman to teach other women how to love their husbands and care for their homes and children. Was it that kind of book? I find it refreshing to see that it was the husband who led out, and did all the speaking in gathered worship. That kind of respect for the order that God gave to His church is rare in our day. It is too bad that you find it ridiculous. It may seem wrong to you, but it is very correct, biblically speaking. Ultimately, Grudem's view is untenable and illogical. He needs to stop pussyfooting around the issue and just state that a book is equally an act of teaching as speaking and, therefore, women should not be writing books about bible.>>> Nonsense. He is afraid to do so, because it would confirm that complementarianism has wide-ranging limitations on women's intellectual expression.>>> Your statement here is lacking in substance.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:35:32 +0000

1. If women are not allowed to have any sort of Bible teaching over the assembled church, how does Sunday School fit under that (which are taught predominantly by women)? You may respond that Sunday school is technically not the assembled church, and I would argue then that standing at the pulpit on Sunday mornings and teaching would not constitute the assembled church either.>>>>

Traditionally, women have taught the Bible to children and to other women. I see no problem. Women should not be teaching the Bible to men in Sunday school, and even less so in gathered worship. It is not proper. It is not biblical.
Scripture is clear on that.
2. If women are not allowed to teach the Bible according to your read of scripture, then why do we appoint and annoint so many women to teach overseas? Women are in a teaching capacity as missionaries all over the world and conservative churches have no qualms about that. These are not wives of missionaries–I'm talking about single women who are serving as missionaries.>>>
I am a missionary, and have served with my husband for over 20 years. Overseas, the vast majority of women missionaries teach children and other women, if they are in teaching ministries. Even in seminaries and Bible colleges, women missionaries have traditionally taught in the Christian Ed departments, or in music or language.
Trust me. I get around. That's how it is. Many women are in other kinds of ministries.
As in “real life”, missionary women generally end up marrying and having children.
3. If women have no authority over churches, then why does Acts reiterate time and again “Priscilla and Acquilla”–naming the wife before the husband. They oversaw a church (together), yet clearly from the Greek, the emphasis stressed Priscilla's authority.
There is no mention of Priscilla having any authority as you are proposing. If anything, she had a more informal influence on Paul. Are you suggesting that Priscilla was a pastor?
the Bible does not say that a man cannot learn anything from a woman, even Bible truths. A woman is not to exercise authority over a man, or lead out in gathered worship. The church has not had any other practice than this until fairly recently with the advent of the feminist movement and it's invasion of the church.
4. Junia is mentioned as one of the apostles at the end of Romans. She must have some sort of authority over assembled people.
It is not even clear that “Junia” was a female, let alone an apostle.
I understand of your desire to do book reviews, but i would imagine that open critique and invitation of various points of views that are both biblical and evangelical would serve your audience.>>>
You views are not biblical. No offense.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:26:05 +0000

GD, thanks for your comment. Being a woman, I've thought about these issues a lot–not only looking at what the Bible says, but also using my own observations of human nature to try to understand why certain things are said in the Bible.
I agree with you that I don't like Grudem's quote here, although I think I understand what he's trying to get at. I would not have explained it this way. I think the key issue is that those who are in authority over others need to be able to hold doctrinal standards, and that the strengths of men (strengths in general–there is a continuum of gifts for individual men and women) make them better equipped to do this (and less equipped to do other things) while the strengths of women (in general) make them less equipped to do this. I don't see the two situations of writing the book (sharing wisdom and knowledge) as being the same as having spiritual authority (to govern and discipline) over others. The reader of the book is not submitting to the author as he would to a pastor. I don't know if I agree with the exact lines that Grudem draws (I've been on vacation and need to catch up with the reading!), but I agree with the principle.
Look at a family relationship: I've had more than one of my male friends say how sorry they were that their mothers would not allow their fathers to discipline them for the good of their own maturity. The mothers were swayed by compassion, while the fathers were able to see what needed to be done and do it. (Incidentally, we had an interesting discussion about this earlier on the blog about the fourth season of 24 where Audrey and Jack illustrated this difference between the sexes. You can look it up in our search box.) This ended up hurting my friends in the long run.
I think we can see this same sort of thing happening in the church today where doctrines are relaxed or dismissed because those with authority don't want people to feel bad about themselves. This is taking the beautiful qualities of compassion and empathy out of situations for which they were intended and putting them in charge of areas (governing, authority, discipline) that were not intended to be led by empathy. (Note that I said “led.” They are certainly to be informed by empathy.)
I have a lot to say about these things, and I intend to write over the coming weeks some things that might fill in the details for you so you can have a better idea of the position, even if you disagree. And we welcome discussion, so I hope you'll stick around.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 04:41:45 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:23:47 +0000

Thanks anonymous,
A couple of things to keep in mind: These are summaries of Grudem's points, so the points are explained in far more detail in the book. Also, this is the part where he builds the positive case for the Complementarian position. The rest of the book addresses objections, so some of your points will be addressed in due time. That said

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:28:03 +0000

This passage is discussing the role of women within the assembled church. When Paul said he did not permit a woman to teach, he was referring to Bible teaching. “The conclusion is that Paul did not allow women to do Bible teaching or have governing authority over the assembled church.” (66)
You guys are smart and so is Grudem, but it's a bit disconcerting (but understandable since you have a conservative bent of the scriptures) of how you are understanding and interpreting and receiving mentoring (from Grudem) regarding the issues of men and women in the church.
1. If women are not allowed to have any sort of Bible teaching over the assembled church, how does Sunday School fit under that (which are taught predominantly by women)? You may respond that Sunday school is technically not the assembled church, and I would argue then that standing at the pulpit on Sunday mornings and teaching would not constitute the assembled church either.
2. If women are not allowed to teach the Bible according to your read of scripture, then why do we appoint and annoint so many women to teach overseas? Women are in a teaching capacity as missionaries all over the world and conservative churches have no qualms about that. These are not wives of missionaries–I'm talking about single women who are serving as missionaries.
3. If women have no authority over churches, then why does Acts reiterate time and again “Priscilla and Acquilla”–naming the wife before the husband. They oversaw a church (together), yet clearly from the Greek, the emphasis stressed Priscilla's authority.
4. Junia is mentioned as one of the apostles at the end of Romans. She must have some sort of authority over assembled people.
I understand of your desire to do book reviews, but i would imagine that open critique and invitation of various points of views that are both biblical and evangelical would serve your audience.