Comments on: EFBT 2.2: Men and Women in Ministry

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:37:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:30:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:07:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:54:00 +0000

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…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:32:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:05:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:12:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:48:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:35:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:22:00 +0000

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