EFBT 2.2: Men and Women in Ministry
September 9, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
Chapter 1 Summary: The Complementarian Position (Roger)
Chapter 2.1 Summary: Men and Women in the Church (Roger)
An Argument for Hierarchy (Amy)
Biblical Hierarchy in Marriage (Amy)
For those who don’t know, this book (Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth) is available for free
online in PDF form. It would be particularly helpful for this post to read
Grudem’s actual text (Chapter 2 Section 8) since he provides lists I’ll be
referring to but not reproducing.
In my summary of the first half of the chapter, I quoted
Grudem noting different dispositions between men and women in relation to
logical analysis and nurturing (see discussion of 1 Timothy 2:11-15). One
commenter went on a rant that women are “less rational than men” (a gross mischaracterization of what Grudem claimed). I’d like to
reply with another quote to clarify Grudem’s position (as well as mine). “To say
this is not to say that men are better than women or that women are inferior to
men. That would be contrary to the entire biblical testimony. But if in fact
God has created us to be different, then it is inevitable that women will be
better at some things (in general) and men will be better at other things (in
general).” (72).
Section 8 asks the question, “But what should women
do in the church?” To help answer the question Grudem distinguishes between
three areas of church ministry: governing authority, Bible teaching, and public
recognition or visibility. Under each heading he provides a list of possible
functions that should either be restricted to men or should be open to both men
and women. These functions are ranked quantitatively. For example, under
governing authority “President of a denomination” is ranked higher than “Church
treasurer.” Grudem gives a word of caution” “These lists are not rankings of
value or importance to the church! Paul tells us that all members of the body
are needed and that ‘the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are
indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we
bestow greater honor’ (1 Corinthians 12:22-23)” (85)
Applying the principles discerned from Scripture earlier in
the book, Grudem sees that being the head of regional and local groups
(denominations/churches) ought to be restricted to men. However, being a
chairperson on a local committee and anything of lesser authority should be
open to both genders. For him, women should not be permanent leaders of
fellowship groups meeting homes, but they can moderate “a Bible discussion in a
home Bible study group.” (94) Certainly a thin line there!
In application of Bible teaching Grudem draws the line
between teaching adults (restricted beginning at college age) and teaching
children (open through high school). He sees women as restricted from “teaching
Bible or theology” at seminary or Christian college, but not at secular
institutions. According to Grudem, women ought not be restricted from writing
or editing study Bibles, biblical commentaries and notes, or books on theology.
This appears to me to be blatantly inconsistent. What authoritative or instructive difference is
there really between teaching Bible at a Christian college and writing the commentary
that’s used in the college? In my opinion, it should all
be open or all be restricted in order to be consistant (I lean toward open).
Only one function under public visibility should be
restricted to men, according to Grudem- the ordaining of a pastor. He believes
women ought to be able to perform baptisms, serve the Lord’s Supper, take
offering, and read Scripture publicly.
I’ve specifically chosen examples that would be more
controversial among complementarians. It’s important to note that in most of
these cases, the Bible does not make a clear statement either way. We must
infer the right decision based on the broad principles it does establish. Due
to this circumstance, we often find disagreements on these particular issues
among those of us who agree with the broader principles. We’re all still
complementarians, though we apply the principles differently.
Related posts:
- EFBT 2.1: Men and Women in the Church
- EFBT: Complementarian Methodology
- EFBT: Complementarian Motivation
- EFBT 1: A Summary of the Complementarian Position
- EFBT: An Argument for Hierarchy
- EFBT: What Does Biblical Hierarchy in Marriage Look Like?
Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
September 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Hi Roger,
I think I agree with you that the lines seem to be drawn arbitrarily. I just bought the book yesterday and have just glanced at the lists. You may not have been aware, but Dr. Grudem was at Biola yesterday and today speaking to the students in the Torrey's Honor Program. I heard about it and sat in–incognito (though, I don't look like a college student).
Dr. Grudem says that women shouldn't teach the Bible or theology in almost every setting, but, as you noted, they can write a commentary and even “a book on Bible doctrines.” I'm wondering, does that mean a theology? I'm guessing that Dr. Grudem is leaving room for women to write books (usually directed at other women) and for men to read them (without feeling as if they can't be exhorted/encouraged by what they read). Also, Dr. Grudem seems very open to receiving wisdom/insight/counsel from women–so reading books by them would fall under this category. But, as authors, women do not hold positions of teaching or governing authority–they can influence, but they cannot directly guide their readers in their thinking and decision-making.
September 10th, 2006 at 12:05 am
One commenter went on a rant that women are
September 10th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Let me clarify further since you insist on mocking Grudem based on the straw man you've built: Neither Grudem nor myself have said women are “more irrational” than men. This is the last time I'll be replying to you until you deal with what Grudem's acutally argued based on the plain teaching of Scripture. It also would help if you'd take responsbility for the things you've said by providing a name and email address.
September 10th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Let me clarify further since you insist on mocking Grudem based on the straw man you've built: Neither Grudem nor myself have said women are “more irrational” than men.
Grudem is not a sacred cow. He's a person and his ideas are subject to criticism.
If rationality is not a difference between men and women and their mental processes, then what, exactly, IS the difference according to Grudem? Do we now know? Do we all suspect what it is, but are afraid to come out and say it? You tell me what the “plain teaching” of scripture is about the mental nature of women. I would love a straight answer on this one.
Grudem has said that men are more suited “for the task of guarding doctrine and condemning error” presumably because they are either more capable of seeing error than women or more willing to argue about it.
If women are less able to recognize error, then this is a comment on their discernment, logic and rational ability.
If women see error and tend to go along with it, then this is a comment on the flighty and undependable nature of women in the face of known error. A person who is willing to go along with known error lacks discernment. A person who is willing to go along with error in spite of knowing the truth is behaving dishonestly. If women doctors are less likely to speak out when they see medical errors made, then they should not be doctors. If female engineers know that the design of a car will lead to numerous deaths but go along with the other engineers to avoid an argument then they should not be engineers.
Ironically, the concept that women want to be “led” drives the idea that they will go along with error. If a women's true nature is to want decisions made for her and to submit and be safe under male leadership, then her investment is in agreement and not truth. Whether or not the willingness to go along with error is a true tendency of women, there is certainly a need for the complementarian argument to hold this idea to be valid.
Whether Grudem made a direct comment about the rationality of women or not, the implications of his direct quotes are very obvious. Even I, as a woman, can both figure out the error AND point it out, which I'm sure is to his dismay.
It also would help if you'd take responsbility for the things you've said by providing a name and email address.
What exactly would anyone want to do with my name and email address?
I would very much like to know.
September 11th, 2006 at 2:22 am
So far, Anon, you have not yet made a case for egalitarianism based on Scripture, nor have you provided a rebuttal against the Scriptural basis for complementarianism. All you have done is shown your disdain for the complementarians, citing things you don't like about it or the people who hold to it, even using language to demonize (“Male dominance”, “exercise in coercion”, “divisive”, “the obsession complementarians have with power”). Fine if you have a grudge against those who have explicitly or implicitly put down women in trying to defend their position in a pragmatic way, but the crux of the matter is the theology.
If Charles Manson said that the sky is blue, his character does not negate the fact that the sky is blue. If the theology is correct, then whatever underlying intention you perceive of complementarians has nothing to do with it. It is correct because it is true, not because you see some devil hiding under the rock of complementarianism.
Complementarians and egalitarians can say all they want based on empirical evidences, but the authority of Scripture trumps all of that. So far, you haven't made a stand from Scripture for your position.
September 11th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Does God approve of women in ministry?
Before you answer this one let me ask another.
Does God ever anoint women to assume roles of leadership among His people?
The only clear way we are going to know is to review the bible and see if Hes ever done it before. When we see these examples then we must see what can be learned from them. In this blog we are going to look in the Old Testament and New Testament both. We will need to lay a foundation before we get into some of the questions this blog will attempt to answer.
Micah 6:4
For I brought you up from the land of Egypt,
I redeemed you from the house of bondage;
And I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
Now Aaron and Miriam were the brother and sister of Moses, and they were just as sent as Moses was. So in this passage we can clearly see that Miriam was sent by God to the children of
Israel to help lead them out. If we examine Miriam a little more we can find she was a very ingenious woman too. We find in Exodus, because of her quick-thinking, Moses is allowed to be nursed by his own mother rather than ending up just in Pharaoh's house. So she had much to do with the salvation of Moses and him entering into the leadership position as the deliverer of God's people out of Egypt. In Exodus 15:20 we also see that Miriam is called a Prophetess. This shouldnt be glanced over lightly for a prophet is one who speaks on God's behalf to the people. This is clearly a leadership position Miriam held and a God-anointed one at that! I know there are some readers who would argue that Miriams ministry was to women and Moses and Aaron handled the men. The passage in Exodus 15 does say that she went out with the women and Ill give you that point, but I think its a stretch to just put it in that category. In further proving why I feel this way Id like to point to another woman that God used that definitely had a lot to do with the men of Israel.
Lets look at a lady named Deborah.
Judges 4:1-5
1 When Ehud was dead, the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD. 2 So the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who dwelt in Harosheth Hagoyim. 3 And the children of Israel cried out to the LORD; for Jabin had nine hundred chariots of iron, and for twenty years he had harshly oppressed the children of Israel.
4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 And she would sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
Before Israel had kings judges ruled them. Basically the book of Judges reads as follows: things would go fine, then Israel would forget God, they would sin, then their enemies would come in and conquer them and harass them and oppress them; and, finally, they would cry out to God, and God would raise up a deliverer and free the people from their oppressors. And that deliverer became a judge who was both a military and a civil leader over the entire nation. They would experience a period of peace, and then it would start all over again. That was basically the story of judges. The only woman ever to achieve such a position was Deborah, and she was placed there by God and by the common consent of the people. The only one higher than her in the nation of Israel was God Almighty. Her word was law!
Second Kings 22, we find yet another woman that God put in a leadership position. Her name was Huldah and yes she was also a prophetess. Second Kings 22. As the story opens up, we find a young boy named Josiah who becomes the king of Judah at age eight. The country is completely into pagan practices at this point. They have completely forsaken God and Josiah doesn't have a clue. Later God begins dealing with Josiah and he gives orders to repair the house of the Lord. When they did this they found the Book of the Law! So they go show it to Josiah and he suddenly realizes this idol worship and Paganism is wrong and the Bible says he rips his clothes. Huldah, as we read on played a very key role in restoring the people back to God. She was a respected prophetess of God. These men could have easily gone to Jeremiah. He was a contemporary at that time and he was prophesying in the kingdom at the same time. They didn't go to Jeremiah, though that would have been a good choice. They went to Huldah the prophetess.
Many people also may not know that Isaiah's wife was a prophetess. There is little said about her, but it is found in the eighth chapter of Isaiah. We will end the Old Testament here and now look in the New Testament. Starting with an elderly prophetess named Anna, who bore witness to Jesus as the Redeemer.
Luke 2:36-38
36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 37 and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
Anna recognized Jesus as the Savior and told it to all that were interested. Many were no doubt interested too for they were looking for the great redemption of Jerusalem, as the prophets of old foretold of a coming Messiah. Now where did she tell this good news at? The Bible says she didn't depart from the temple. We would say she was preaching to everybody that came in to the house of God. How many think God minded? I don't. She sure didn't keep silent, but we will save that one for later.
Lets now skip up to the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. There are all these people in the upper room, women included, baptized in the Holy Spirit, speaking in other tongues and then it breaks out on the street. A crowd gathers and Peter starts preaching, and he quotes from a prophecy of Joel:
Acts 2:16-18
16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
Now lets look in Acts 21:8 and well see even more New Testament women in ministry,
8 On the next day we who were Pauls companions departed and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.
Okay, I know there are some who may dare to say, Just because they were gifted women, it doesnt mean they were used as much as men were. I sincerely hope this ignorant line of thought isnt in anyones head, but of course there are always some. Lets now look to the Book of Romans, chapter 16. . Paul is writing to the church at Rome, the entire church, men and women, he says,
Romans 16:1-2
1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, 2 that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.
Now the word “servant” is the Greek word diaconos. It's the word translated deacon; or, in this case, deaconess. She served and ministered to the saints in Cenchrea. which was a port city not too far from Corinth. She had a position of respect in the church and if you look through the Scriptures, there is quite a list of requirements that someone has to meet before they can stand in
the office of a deacon. Their family has got to be right, got to be a person of integrity, there is a bunch of things involved there. Now lets take a quick rabbit trail off the Romans road just a second to 1 Corinthians 3:5
1 Corinthians 3:5
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?
Guess what the word there for ministers is? Diaconos. The very same thing that Paul said Phoebe was. A minister. A minister. In fact, throughout the Scriptures Paul describes himself and others preachers of the gospel. In connection with preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, he uses this word and calls himself a minister and calls others ministers. They were preachers and ministers of the word, and he puts Phoebe in the same category.
Now back to Romans 16, if you would. Now she is a servant, she has ministered to the church at Cenchrea, and look what he says in verse 2, he said, “receive her and assist her.” Receive her, accept her, and accept her ministry. That's what it means. Accept her. Apparently some people had a problem then just like now being Paul had to tell them to do this. Most scholars agree that she was the one that carried this epistle to the Romans. Something Paul would not just trust to anyone.
Let's read on. He talks about some other ladies in this same chapter.
Romans 16:3
Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,
Fellow workers, plural; that is, Priscilla is a fellow worker and Aquila, husband and wife team, fellow workers in Christ Jesus. Paul goes on to say in verse 4 “Likewise greet the church that is in their house…”
Personally I believe they were among the first Home Group Leaders as we would call them today.
Also in Romans 16:7, “Greet Andronicus and Junia…” Andronicus is a male name; Junia is a female name. Again, perhaps a husband and wife team. We don't know. Other translations say they are outstanding among the apostles. Now perhaps it could be argued that, well, just the apostles knew them well. Well, which apostles are those? There are not just twelve apostles in the New Testament. As scripture reads there are many more than twelve at this point! Would it be so far-fetched for the same God that anointed Deborah as second in command over Israel under Him to have a few female Apostles?
So does God anoint women for ministry and place them in significant roles of leadership among His people? I believe the answer is a resounding Yes!
I did say we would address this women being silent in the church issue so lets dare to go there for I believe there is a lot of confusion about it and it has been a snare to many women not stepping out into the callings God has for them in life.
1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
The church at Corinth was undoubtedly a mess. As we read Pauls 1st epistle to them we see there are numerous bad reports Paul has to address ranging from sexual sin to misuse of the spiritual gifts to lack of love amongst the brethren and more! In chapter 11:4-5 Paul is writing to the church at Corinth about a woman having her head covered as it was a symbol of the fact that she was under submission and authority to her husband.
The same Apostle Paul that wrote those words in chapter 14 here talks about a woman praying and prophesying publicly. And he is just giving her some directions about her appearance when she does so, but he is acknowledging that women pray and that women prophesy.
What does that entail? All right, women are prophesying. What does it mean? Well, again, here is the same chapter that we read where Paul said a woman must keep silent in the church, and look what he says earlier in the chapter: Who is that written to? Just the men in the church, or to everyone?
Of course it was written to everyone. Look in verse 3, (1 Cor. 14:3-4). Now we had read that Paul said later on in the chapter to let your women keep silent in the churches. But here the Scripture clearly says that women are to prophesy. Paul acknowledged that woman are to prophesy and just what did he say about prophecy? They speak to men to edification, to exhortation, and to comfort; and he that prophesies… the one that prophesies edifies the church.”
So, apparently, when he said women are to keep silent in the church, he didn't mean that they were not to stand in a place of public ministry and give forth an utterance because he just said earlier in the chapter, “He that prophesies edifies the church.” It is something that is done in the church. So in this instance women can certainly speak in church.
So to take the posture that women are not allowed to speak in church is to say they cannot minister in church and this does not harmonize with the rest of Scripture and even the scripture Paul himself had written. Apparently, Paul meant something else. I have heard theories that perhaps the women of the church at Corinth were bad to gossip. It is apparent that there was plenty to talk about.
In Closing:
Personally I think it had to do with learning, and it had to do with asking questions. I dont think it has anything to do with whether women can be called into the ministry offices of teaching and preaching. That was not even the subject under discussion. It had to do with learning and asking questions. I think the scripture overall indicates that God is pleased with women in ministry and has certainly given His anointing to it. I think God is however displeased with so many callings going to waste because of a wrong doctrine on this subject.
God has never once said women are the head of the house. The roles are clear here and God is about promoting order, but even in this God requires men to love their wives as Christ loves the church and how much does Jesus love us?
He was a servant even unto death for us.
So regardless of whether you are male or female stepping out into ministry Jesus is our template for ministry and His ministry was one of Servanthood!.
September 11th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
“But, as authors, women do not hold positions of teaching or governing authority–they can influence, but they cannot directly guide their readers in their thinking and decision-making.”
Hey Chong!
I think Dr. Grudem would agree with you there, but that's where I see the problem to be. If one holds that women should not teach on the Bible in any setting, it seems to me that it should follow that writing is one of those settings. I turn to books to be taught by the author because they've studied something in far greater depth than I have. The only difference between the author and the professor is the platform through which they teach. So, I think, in order to be consistent, Dr. Grudem would have to restrict women from writing on the Bible.
However, I disagree with the premise which he seems to be working on. I think the Bible is clear that women should not teach the Bible in the assembled church. But Christian college/seminary is not the church and should not be confused with it. The Bible is of course absent regarding the situation, but I don't see sufficient evidence in the Bible to conclude that women teaching on the Bible should be prohibited.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:24 am
So far, Anon, you have not yet made a case for egalitarianism based on Scripture, nor have you provided a rebuttal against the Scriptural basis for complementarianism.
I'm not making a case for egalitarianism.
Wayne Grudem and his writings make a case for complementarianism, and I am responding to that.
We are talking about Wayne Grudem's writings. I just posted a quote above regarding a statement by Grudem that women are less capable of guarding doctrinal truth than men, due apparently to an intrinsic tendency to agree with known error rather than to fight it.
There is nothing scriptural about the idea that women go along with known error or have a hesitation in confronting others they disagree with. Grudem made that up based on heaven knows what. My theory is that he was trying to say that women are less discerning than men without making a blunt statement that could later come back to haunt him. However, I can hardly prove that.
At any rate, I am not obliged to make a scriptural counter-argument against Grudem's scripturally baseless statement.
All you have done is shown your disdain for the complementarians, citing things you don't like about it or the people who hold to it, even using language to demonize (“Male dominance”, “exercise in coercion”, “divisive”, “the obsession complementarians have with power”).
I'm sorry that you reacted to my comments with the idea that I was demonizing complementarianism. Did you consider anything that I was trying to say? At all?
I'm not in a conspiracy against complementarians. I'm not trying to influence and manipulate church leadership boards to push my position on churches behind the backs of their congregations. I'm not saying that one's opinions about gender roles are practically an element of salvation. I'm not ducking and dodging around, allowing people to draw conclusions from what I say while I prudently never actually come out and state things bluntly. Even if I state things strongly, at least I am being honest and above-board.
If Charles Manson said that the sky is blue, his character does not negate the fact that the sky is blue. If the theology is correct, then whatever underlying intention you perceive of complementarians has nothing to do with it.
The sky is percieved as blue by our eyes, but it is not actually blue.
There are many colors in diffused sunlight, and our eyesight is better at seeing blue than some of them, and blue scatters better than others.
Complementarian theology has several contrived/flawed elements. I'm sticking to commenting on Grudem's book.
I'm not sure what to make of your comments about intention and theological truth. Knowing theological truth is worse than useless without right intention. I can't imagine how one can have correct theological truths and wrong intentions without the practical outcome of the theological truths being corrupted.
Complementarians and egalitarians can say all they want based on empirical evidences, but the authority of Scripture trumps all of that. So far, you haven't made a stand from Scripture for your position.
This is not my blog. I'm just commenting. I neither have to state my position nor defend it, because the topic of the discussion is Grudem's position.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:04 am
I'm not making a case for egalitarianism.
Wayne Grudem and his writings make a case for complementarianism, and I am responding to that.
Anon, you may be responding against Grudem in this post, but I'm responding to the whole of your arguments, not just in this specific subject. You say you aren't making a case for egalitarianism, but you sure lay it on thick against complementarianism, like so:
Complementarians are fixated on headship, control and power, and they struggle to reconcile the nature of women to the place they want them to occupy in the hierarchical structure that they consider the only righteous way of viewing the world.
Without even responding on a Scriptural basis, you poison the well so that whatever position a complementarian takes, it's just powermongering on their part. This is why I say:
If the theology is correct, then whatever underlying intention you perceive of complementarians has nothing to do with it.
You do not know my heart, nor do you know Grudem's heart, so for you to judge in such a manner as to demonize complementarians is sin. What you can do is provide a Scriptural basis against complementarianism and point out where the theology is “contrived/flawed”. If you can't provide a counter-theology, then you have no basis for calling it “contrived/flawed” nor lump complementarians as power-hungry. And even if you were to prove complementarianism is bad theology, that does not necessarily prove evil/bad/wrong intention. Though it may be true that bad intention can lead to bad theology, so can good intention lead to bad theology. So, bad theology cannot prove good or bad intention.
At any rate, I am not obliged to make a scriptural counter-argument against Grudem's scripturally baseless statement.
As I had said before, you can go ahead respond to those who defend their position in a pragmatic way. I find such arguments less authoritative than Scripture, so I don't use empirical evidence. But when you go and make sweeping generalizations about complementarians, then you had better start providing a Scriptural basis against complementarianism other than what you perceive.
I'm sorry that you reacted to my comments with the idea that I was demonizing complementarianism. Did you consider anything that I was trying to say? At all?
I
September 12th, 2006 at 8:54 am
I noticed in the latest newsletter of Lutheran Bible Translators that the N.T. has been translated into Kabon, a language of 10,000 people of Papua, New Guinea. You'll probably not rejoice for them having God's word in their hands since a woman worked on this for 30 years, so it must be filled with error and mischief, because that's what women do.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Grow up.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
I've been reading this series with great interest. While I disagree strongly with Grudem's thesis, I appreciate the care and thoughtfulness that Grudem, Roger, and Amy have brought to this heated topic. (The value on serious thought is something I have always appreciated about the A-Team Blog. Despite our differences on certain positions, I can say amen to the blog's authors who time and again argue that Christianity matters, that we need to think deeply about it, and that it is coherent and true.)
I am saddened that the comments between Anonymous and Victor Sarmiento on this post are teetering on ad hominem attacks. Gender is a serious topic and one that invokes strong opinions and feelings, but if we cannot disagree cordially in front of a watching world, then I wonder about the health of our witness.
As I said, I have watched the discussion with interest and have found two comments more in line with my position that I think merit a response from those who uphold the complementarian position. The first JW's comment in the previous post. The second is Oscar Broome, Jr.'s comment in this post. Mr. Broome's comment is a brief walk through the Bible with several detailed examples of women in leadership amongst God's people — something that Mr. Sarmiento has requested of Anonymous several times.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I am saddened that the comments between Anonymous and Victor Sarmiento on this post are teetering on ad hominem attacks.
I'm surprised that you would think that I'm teetering on ad hominem attacks, while Anon has explicitly done so. All I've done is call her out to give a Scriptural basis for her attacks, while pointing out her invectives against complementarians.
Gender is a serious topic and one that invokes strong opinions and feelings, but if we cannot disagree cordially in front of a watching world, then I wonder about the health of our witness.
Yes, my replies are strong, but that's because this is not just a disagreement about complementarianism. If it was, then we'd actually have a something to talk about and hash out. But rather than just disagreeing and pointing out flaws (of which she has not given a theological reply), she makes accusations about the character of complementarians.
As for the health of our witness, that's going to be subjective. The reader will have to determine if she is right or wrong about how she presents her case against complementarianism, and if I am right or wrong to call her out as strongly as I did on her unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will agree and disagree on both sides.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
I am saddened that the comments between Anonymous and Victor Sarmiento on this post are teetering on ad hominem attacks.
I don't think I've attacked Victor personally. I really don't know a single thing about him. My concerns are with the issues at hand, and not with particular individuals.
If I was talking to a red-haired person, and I told them that I heard that most red-haired people had low IQs, would that red-haired person percieve that as an ad hominum attack? Probably. What if I protested that I read a scientific study by brunette scientists that said as much, that it was Truth and I certainly didn't mean to offend the person I was talking to by saying it? Would that help? Probably not.
Likewise, when Grudem says that most women are more likely to accept known error without protesting, how do you suppose that comment feels if one is a woman? Do you think that it might be percieved as an ad hominum attack? How do you think I feel when I'm told I have a genetic predisposition to tolerate error without arguing? Since I will, in fact, argue about almost anything with anyone, does this make me a dysfunctional woman?
Wayne Grudem is a public figure and published author. He financially profits from the promulgation of his views. Therefore, he is in a different catagory than a private citizen, particularly when we are talking about his beliefs. If he doesn't want people to disagree with him, he can journal in his secret diary and hide it under his mattress. Otherwise, he's fair game.
Mr. Broome's comment is a brief walk through the Bible with several detailed examples of women in leadership amongst God's people — something that Mr. Sarmiento has requested of Anonymous several times.
I think it's just fine to provide examples of women in leadership. I did not know that Victor wanted me to do so, however.
I know he has asked me to defend my position scripturally several times. The problem with this is that several of the underlying presumptions of complementarianism are not scriptural or are very questionable outcomes of scriptural interpretation.
Voting elder boards, greeters, biblical counselors, ushers, the widespread publishing of books and other issues that Grudem comments on are not in the bible. He takes overarching principles that he believes from scripture and interprets what modern gender roles should be like based on those principles. He takes what he believes to be biblical principles about the nature of men and women and extrapolates definitions of proper maleness and femaleness from them.
These extrapolations cannot really be defended scripturally, because they are opinions based on one interpretation of a handful of scriptures.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:22 am
I will refer to myself as GD, which I believe I used in one of my original responses.
Anon, you may be responding against Grudem in this post, but I'm responding to the whole of your arguments, not just in this specific subject.
I don't get it. The subject of this blog is Grudem's book. It is being discussed chapter by chapter. What exactly is the problem with sticking to a single chapter and the comments on it? There was an opportunity to respond to other comments previously and in context.
You say you aren't making a case for egalitarianism, but you sure lay it on thick against complementarianism, like so: “Complementarians are fixated on headship, control and power, and they struggle to reconcile the nature of women to the place they want them to occupy in the hierarchical structure that they consider the only righteous way of viewing the world.” Without even responding on a Scriptural basis, you poison the well so that whatever position a complementarian takes, it's just powermongering on their part.
The scriptures don't rate every function in a church from pastor to usher on descending scales of authority, visibility, recognition and teaching. Have you looked at the chart which is the subject of this discussion?
Even if you do not see it as such, please consider an alternate perspective and let me tell you that when I look at a detailed hierarchical chart the likes of which I have never seen or imagined in the context of a discussion of church activities, I see an obsession with hierarchy.
That is because the chart is hierarchical. It rates positions in the church based on the power and control inherent in those positions. The point of the list is to tell women which positions they may occupy. Men may occupy any position, so the chart really has nothing to do with them.
Therefore, the statement of mine you quoted is absolutely correct and I do not retract a single jot of it.
You do not know my heart, nor do you know Grudem's heart, so for you to judge in such a manner as to demonize complementarians is sin.
I did not demonize anyone. I said that I do not agree with that approach to power in the church.
I don't know anything about Grudem's heart. I know what he devotes hours upon hours of his time devoting himself to writing. My comments on complementarianism are certainly not a sin.
As for you, I never really intended my remarks about complementarianism to be taken as a personal judgement on you. Unless you're Wayne Grudem secretly posting under a pseudonym, in which case it can't be helped.
If you can't provide a counter-theology, then you have no basis for calling it “contrived/flawed” nor lump complementarians as power-hungry.
I might have already mentioned that I think the Trinity vs marital roles analogy in complementarian thought is both contrived and flawed.
I don't think all complementarians are power-hungry. I think that complementarianism as a movement has an undue interest in hierarchy. I also think that complementarianism takes an approach to authority, power and human nature that can argued against in both scripture and life.
However, as I've said, I'm most interested in trying to stick to the topic at hand, so I will not elaborate on that.
“At any rate, I am not obliged to make a scriptural counter-argument against Grudem's scripturally baseless statement.” As I had said before, you can go ahead respond to those who defend their position in a pragmatic way. I find such arguments less authoritative than Scripture, so I don't use empirical evidence. But when you go and make sweeping generalizations about complementarians, then you had better start providing a Scriptural basis against complementarianism other than what you perceive
When I get a verse that says that women are poor guardians of doctrine because they tend to not argue against error, then I will look for a counter-scripture.
But since Grudem has no scriptural basis for saying such a thing, what am I supposed to do? It is a non-argument! It is an opinion!
See?
I
September 13th, 2006 at 1:35 am
I know he has asked me to defend my position scripturally several times. The problem with this is that several of the underlying presumptions of complementarianism are not scriptural or are very questionable outcomes of scriptural interpretation.
If the underlying presumptions are not scriptural, you still have to demonstrate how they are not scriptural. That is, show from Scripture how complementarians are not understanding the text. Otherwise, this is only an assertion.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:48 am
Roger,
I'm just trying to understand Dr. Grudem's view and offer an explanation that he might give. Personally, I don't see eye-to-eye with Dr. Grudem on several things, including his arguments on the eternal subordination of the Son (which is pure speculation), the tendency that men historically have held positions of authority in society (which also can be attributed to systemic inequalities), and the suggestion that women are intellectually weaker in some way to justify male leadership.
But I still agree with Dr. Grudem's conclusions of male headship in the home and that some teaching and governing roles should be limited to men. I think that anyone who holds to inerrancy has to agree with these two principles.
The problem is, in the real world, these two principles can lead to all kinds of seemingly contradictory applications. Like Dr. Grudem's view that women should not teach the Bible in universities, but they can write books on the subject. As another commentator noted, in the academic setting, the two are usually intertwined–one providing a venue and an opportunity for the other.
Even more problematic is the intersection where these biblical principles meet 21st Centurey social practices. A woman can have a male secretary and essentially tell him what to do, but, in a bible study setting with the same person, he has to lead because he's the man. A woman can be a Senator and make decisions that would affect the entire nation, but she can't serve as an elder and help make decisions for her local church. A woman can teach a philosophy class and discuss Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God, but she can't teach a theology class at a conservative seminary and discuss the same subject. There's something inconsistent and unsettling about all of this. Some would say that, feminism has corrupted society and everything is not as it should be (more women should stay home and do a better job of raising their children). Others would say that the church needs to stop oppressing women and begin living in the real world. Of these two opinions, I would fall closer to the first. I don't think there's an easy solution. We can't go back to the 1950's–no matter how much people like Dr. Grudem want to. At the same time, because I live by the principles taught in Scripture–which I take as reflecting the timeless wisdom of God–I refuse to adjust my beliefs to ever-changing trends in society and culture.
I agree with Dr. Grudem when he said that it takes mature wisdom to determine whether a particular situation would be appropriate. We humans work better with clear lines drawn between what we can and cannot do. But, in these areas where the Bible does not provide a definitive rule, the better approach may be to evaluate each situation individually. And hopefully there will be mature Christians to pray and apply wisdom to the situation to arrive at a result that honors God.
September 13th, 2006 at 6:12 am
I don't get it. The subject of this blog is Grudem's book. It is being discussed chapter by chapter. What exactly is the problem with sticking to a single chapter and the comments on it? There was an opportunity to respond to other comments previously and in context.
It's not a problem if you would actually stick to the chapter. The problem I find is that you take a giant leap from critiquing Grudem to making sweeping generalizations about complementarians. At that point, you are no longer aiming your points at Grudem, but to those who hold to the complementarian position.
The scriptures don't rate every function in a church from pastor to usher on descending scales of authority, visibility, recognition and teaching. Have you looked at the chart which is the subject of this discussion? Even if you do not see it as such, please consider an alternate perspective and let me tell you that when I look at a detailed hierarchical chart the likes of which I have never seen or imagined in the context of a discussion of church activities, I see an obsession with hierarchy.
Again, if you would not make the leap from Grudem to the rest of the complementarians, then there is no problem. Your words again:
Complementarians are fixated on headship, control and power, and they struggle to reconcile the nature of women to the place they want them to occupy in the hierarchical structure that they consider the only righteous way of viewing the world.
You didn't aim this at the part (Grudem). You aimed this at the whole (complementarians).
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is a fixation on the part of complementarians. Are they fixated on gaining power for themselves, or are they fixated on keeping order because they are fixated on being biblical? To you, it seems like the former, but to me, I believe that it is the latter (generally speaking, of course). I can also say the latter applies also to egalitarians (in general), and I don't have to accuse them of trying to gain power where they are not allowed. What it boils down to is an examination on how each side is intepreting Scripture. Instead of doing this, you derive an intention (aka judge the hearts of complementarians) based on what you perceive (subjective, at best).
I did not demonize anyone. I said that I do not agree with that approach to power in the church.
I have no problem if you would just disagree and then reason it out as to why you disagree. But to paint a picture of complementarians as being power-hungry, then that is no longer just disagreeing.
I don't know anything about Grudem's heart. I know what he devotes hours upon hours of his time devoting himself to writing. My comments on complementarianism are certainly not a sin.
If you make statements about intention that cannot be verified, then it's slander. Yes, that is sin. Saying that he is wrong in his assessments and then proving it, well, that's good criticism.
As for you, I never really intended my remarks about complementarianism to be taken as a personal judgement on you.
You may not have intended it directly to me personally, nor may not have intended it to be a judgement against any complementarian, but then that would mean your words were very careless. What if I wrote:
[Women] are fixated on headship, control and power, and they struggle to reconcile the nature of [men] to the place they want them to occupy in the hierarchial structure that they consider the only righteous way of viewing the world.
Not a nice thing to say, is it?
Unless you're Wayne Grudem secretly posting under a pseudonym, in which case it can't be helped.
Nah, I ain't him.
I might have already mentioned that I think the Trinity vs marital roles analogy in complementarian thought is both contrived and flawed.
I looked over the course of the discussions and have not found such statements. But if you did, was it elaborated as to why you thought it was contrived and flawed?
I don't think all complementarians are power-hungry.
I'm glad to hear that. Had you made a disclaimer in your comments that you don't lump all complementarians under such a negative notion, the air would be much clearer.
I think that complementarianism as a movement has an undue interest in hierarchy.
Seeing as how the Bible has the greatest authority over our lives, it ought to be expected that both sides (comp and egals) would have a great deal of interest in hierarchy. That is to say that they have a great deal of interest in the order (hierarchy) that God has established. That's not “undue interest,” as you put it. That's zeal.
To say the complementarian movement has an undue interest in hierarchy is like saying a computer engineer has an undue interest in computers.
I also think that complementarianism takes an approach to authority, power and human nature that can argued against in both scripture and life. However, as I've said, I'm most interested in trying to stick to the topic at hand, so I will not elaborate on that.
I'm sure as this series progress, perhaps you will eventually elaborate. I look forward to it.
When I get a verse that says that women are poor guardians of doctrine because they tend to not argue against error, then I will look for a counter-scripture. But since Grudem has no scriptural basis for saying such a thing, what am I supposed to do? It is a non-argument! It is an opinion!
See?
You missed the point of what I was saying (again). I have no problem with you making arguments against Grudem's pragamatic points.
Complementarianism picks its words carefully to paint a picture against women as weak in the face of error, passive and primarily concerned with being followers rather than practicing initiative. Women complain and complementarians react with wounded indignance!
Taken from your previous comments, I'll assume you mean some complementarians, and not all.
But when you talk about -ism, then it's an issue of the belief system, not the people. Does complementarianism paint the kind of picture you say it does? You'll have to prove that, not just assert it.
Oh, yeah. I absolutely said that. I followed by saying that leadership ability is evident in both genders and all ethnicities. I will expand by saying that this evidence can be found in scripture as well as real life, and there is no statement I know of in scripture that states that women cannot have an inclination to lead.
Keep in context as to why I quoted you. The issue is your assertions without substantiation. You say “complementarianism is a blend of improper theology,” yet don't show how the theology is improper. Your follow-up about the evident leadership ability in both genders and all ethnicities, is, as you put it to Amy, anecdotal. That doesn't address the theology you find improper.
One reason their theology is bad is that they present opinions based on anecdotal and empirical evidences as theology.
Now where getting somewhere! And guess what? I can agree with this statement, if it can be proven that this is so. I, for one, just stick to the Scriptures, and rely much less on observation. After all, what if I were to observe that most men are idiots and most women are Einsteins? Pragmatically speaking, women would be the ones to lead. However, Scripturally, men are the ones called to the greater responsibility apart from their giftedness or ungiftedness.
Of course, if you wish to dispute my last statement, then it would be time to get into Scripture.
[Grudem's quote]… Is this a theological statement? Yes. Can some, any or all of this be confirmed in scripture? Where did Paul/scripture say that women have a more “relational” disposition? Where did Paul/scripture say that women “place a higher value on unity” than men? That's hoo-haw. Plus, didn't I get in trouble for saying that Grudem views women as “less rational” than men, when that quotation said exactly that?
Believe me when I say that I don't like Grudem's statement any more than you. It seems to import secular anthropology. Even if it were right, I wouldn't have used it.
No, the topic is Grudem's book. I've stated my opinion, which is that Grudem's book and opinions are flawed. I'm not making character assassinations.
If it is, then be more careful when you leap from critiquing Grudem to making statements about complementarians and complementarianism.
If I think that we should cut off aid to Israel and a Zionist thinks that people who want to cut off aid to Israel are politically foolish, that is not a character assassination. I happen to fit under the catagory of “politically foolish” in that person's estimation, but that person's opinion was not directed at my character personally, and I just happened to fall under a blacklisted catagory.
LOL I don't know if you really understand your own analogy. If someone was to call anyone foolish because of an action or inaction, you can bet they have a direct problem with your character. They are, after all, categorizing you as a fool! And when someone makes it public that a certain kind of people are fools without any substance, that is a character assassination.
As for the “shadows”, what do you mean? I'm not giving out my email address or real name. There's one complementarian that I am currently hiding from for the protection of my own sanity, so I don't really want to use my known pseudonyms. So…?
I'm referring to your lack of a stated-stance, not your name. You make statements against complementarian(s/ism), but never really show what your stance is.
September 13th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I apologize that I misrepresented you both as you have articulated well why you weren't engaging in ad hominem attacks against one another.
For what it's worth, I recommend that people check out Scot McKnight's series on Woman in Ministry, beginning with his post on Mary the mother of Jesus. At the very least, it's thought-provoking.
September 14th, 2006 at 12:32 am
This is from GD.
It's not a problem if you would actually stick to the chapter. The problem I find is that you take a giant leap from critiquing Grudem to making sweeping generalizations about complementarians. At that point, you are no longer aiming your points at Grudem, but to those who hold to the complementarian position.
If it would make you happy, I will refer to “complementarianism as envisioned by Grudem” in order to specify that I am referring to his opinions, rather than the opinions held by other complementarians.
However, please understand that my stance is that Grudem wrote the book on complementarianism, he is its chief spokesperson and for all practical purposes, he defines what complementarianism is.
I just had a protracted discussion with someone who informed me that there were a bunch of obscure theologians who are much better complementarians than Grudem and I had no right to comment on complementarianism without taking them into account.
In fact, the garden-variety complementarianism that is affecting churches comes primarily from Grudem and the CBMW, and it is really trifling to say anything otherwise.
Your words again: Complementarians are fixated on headship, control and power, and they struggle to reconcile the nature of women to the place they want them to occupy in the hierarchical structure that they consider the only righteous way of viewing the world. You didn't aim this at the part (Grudem). You aimed this at the whole (complementarians).
OK. The ball is in your court. Tell me about the alternate form of complementarianism that is not concerned with headship and hierarchy. What is their particular agenda?
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is a fixation on the part of complementarians. Are they fixated on gaining power for themselves, or are they fixated on keeping order because they are fixated on being biblical?
I'm not sure what their intentions are. I certainly believe that any movement that revolves around limiting the visibility and influence of a particular group of people is concerned with power.
Please read section 14.6 of “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” (Hey! that's the book we're discussing!).
“Find out the governing structure of your church and how it works”
“If a majority of elders are not complementarian…see if you can find new candidates to stand for elder…”
Grudem stresses the idea that it is important to get a written policy towards complementarianism, since this is hard to change (and if the written policy excludes women from policy making, their voice is officially and effectively silenced, and male complementarians are guaranteed power).
I find this whole “strategy” section of Grudem's book to be revolting. It is politically manipulative. It admits to being divisive and coercive. It seeks to bypass natural decision making, personal conviction and concensus. It is disrespectful of church bodies as a whole, seeking out a few powerful individuals to use as levers.
Now then, is Grudem's complementarianism fixated on gaining power?
I have no problem if you would just disagree and then reason it out as to why you disagree. But to paint a picture of complementarians as being power-hungry, then that is no longer just disagreeing.
Am I speaking too strongly? While in the meantime, the most influential complementarian in America has stated that women are less analytical and less rational than men?
Grudem says (of egalitarianism and complementarianism): “If both views are acceptable, then there will be no effective way to prevent women from doing these things [becoming elders or pastors]”
He says: “All that egalitarians want (for the moment at least) is the right for some women to become pastors or elders.”
“Having women as…elders erodes male leadership” (because a real man would never consent to a role in which some sissy woman shares power with him).
Grudem's emphasis is on winning, on the complementarian position as he views it coming out on top and on the prevention of women ascending to positions of influence in churches in such a way that their involvement can never be reversed.
Grudem's comments reveal a barely-concealed derision of me as a woman. My womanhood is portrayed as sign of mental weakness and a shame to any man who might share an equal role with me. I'm not apologizing for my “power-hungry” comment. In Grudem's complementarianism there is a craving for power and a debasement of the standing of women.
That is to say that they have a great deal of interest in the order (hierarchy) that God has established. That's not “undue interest,” as you put it. That's zeal. To say the complementarian movement has an undue interest in hierarchy is like saying a computer engineer has an undue interest in computers.
The complementarian interpretation of God's order is just an interpretation, and a rather shallow one at that.
The most difficult principle for people in the New Testament to accept was not the idea of hierarchy. Elitism and hierarchy were the practice of the day.
Rather, the message of equality of people before Jesus was nearly incomprehensible to most people. If a Samaritan was just as worthy of Jesus's attention, where did that leave the Pharisee? The high-standing members of Jesus's community were deeply insulted at Jesus's refusal to observe their ranking system. Undoubtedly they resented the attention Jesus gave women. He was more interested in the needs of the sick than the rules of the religious.
How you interpret the behavior of Jesus as reinforcing hierarchy, I cannot imagine.
“Complementarianism picks its words carefully to paint a picture against women as weak in the face of error, passive and primarily concerned with being followers rather than practicing initiative. Women complain and complementarians react with wounded indignance!” Taken from your previous comments, I'll assume you mean some complementarians, and not all. But when you talk about -ism, then it's an issue of the belief system, not the people. Does complementarianism paint the kind of picture you say it does? You'll have to prove that, not just assert it.
Right, where is this secret sect of complementarians who have such high regard for the initiative, strong opinions and leadership instincts of women? They need to stop hiding their light under a bushel and let it shine.
Do these people publish, or have organizations? I'm not finding these attitudes at known complimentarian clubhouses such as the CBMW, Doug Wilsonland, the Baylyblog and the International Council for Gender Studies.
Pragmatically speaking, women would be the ones to lead. However, Scripturally, men are the ones called to the greater responsibility apart from their giftedness or ungiftedness. Of course, if you wish to dispute my last statement, then it would be time to get into Scripture.
OK. In what way are men called to greater responsibility?
don't know if you really understand your own analogy. If someone was to call anyone foolish because of an action or inaction, you can bet they have a direct problem with your character. They are, after all, categorizing you as a fool! And when someone makes it public that a certain kind of people are fools without any substance, that is a character assassination.
A character assassination is “an attack intended to ruin someone's reputation” or “a vicious personal verbal attack, especially one intended to destroy or damage a public figure's reputation.”
In other words it's directed at a specific individual with the intention to harm.
Not a character assassination:
“It is disgraceful for a public dignitary to have sex in the Oval Office with their intern.”
Character assassination, in the event that the claim cannot be proven and intends to destroy Bill Clinton's public career:
“I heard Bill Clinton had sex in the Oval Office with his intern. He is a sexually freaky disgrace to the presidency and I'm announcing that on Oprah.”
Attacking a group of people on the basis of an immutable characteristic (for instance, womanhood) of their personhood, could be considered a personal attack by any person with that characteristic, just as a racial slur would be taken personally by any person from that racial group overhearing it.
I'm referring to your lack of a stated-stance, not your name. You make statements against complementarian(s/ism), but never really show what your stance is.
I'm not a complementarian. I would not call myself a classic egalitarian necessarily. I lean towards egalitarianism, but there are certain issues that are key to egalitarianism that are not important to me personally.
Remember, this blog is Roger's and Amy's and they are discussing Grudem-style complementarianism. It's one thing for them to buy team jerseys and rah-flags and declare a side, but that is certainly not necessary for people commenting here.
September 14th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, I've only had time to skim it. In the future, you may want to keep the length of your comments shorter so people are more likely to read and respond to it.
My aim in posting this series is to: 1) Summarize and critique Grudem's arguments made in his book 2) Use this to engage in a broader conversation about Complementarianism. People are free to embark on rabbit trails in the comments as they please, but since I'm short on time I'll be sticking to these goals.
With that in mind, I'm not interested in at this time in really getting into the Egalitarian position. But I'll say this: While I appreciate the time you've taken to make an argument informed by various points in Scripture, I don't think you (or Egalitarians in general) can provide an Egalitarian account that harmonizes with all of Scripture. You've only dealt with the 1 Corinthians 14 passage, but there's more. Look back at the first two posts in this series. Specifically, what about 1 Timothy 2:11-15?
In regards to the Corinthians passage, I agree with D.A. Carson (see Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood) that Paul is stating that women can prophesy but they cannot discuss the prophecy in the assembled church. This makes the most sense of the passage and harmonizes with 1 Timothy 2.
On Friday I'll be posting on the Complementarian motivation and methodology. I hope you'll stick around and let me know what you think about that…
September 14th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Roger, you're very welcome.
McKnight is one of the most lucid and engaging writers out there right now. One may not agree with him on every turn (I tend to), but he's always thoughtful and offers points worthy of discussion. And I don't say that just because we're in the same denomination.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:30 am
I haven't read Grudem's book. Does he deal with the host of texts that Oscar outlined above, or does he focus on the 1 Tim passage and the others that you mentioned in the EFBT 2.1 post? It's fair to criticize Oscar for not dealing with some specific texts, but I think it's also fair for Oscar to say the same of others who use 1 Tim and 1 Cor 14 and do not deal with the texts he discusses. If we're going after a truly biblical vision of men and women, then the whole of the Bible needs to be considered and discussed.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:37 am
I think Grudem will deal with those passages, since chapters 3-13 deal with Egalitarian objections to his model. My post on Friday will touch on those passages since I think the real question being raised here is one of methodology.