EFBT: Complementarian Motivation
September 16, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
Thus far we’ve provided a positive case for the
Complementarian view of biblical manhood and womanhood through summarizing
Wayne Grudem’s arguments in Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth.
Over the course of the past five posts, some questions have been raised as to
Grudem’s (and, in general, complementarians’) motivations for making these
arguments. Specifically, he has been charged with being “power-hungry” and
“politically manipulative;” as well as “divisive and coercive.”
This is a common liberal strategy for dismissing arguments
instead of thinking critically about them: label someone or their view with
derogatory terms and it is then no longer necessary to deal their arguments.
(Not that conservatives do not occasionally use this strategy, but it is far
more common from the liberal side.) Along those lines, most accusations about
power grabs betray a postmodern/liberal worldview.
Beyond being a dismissive rhetorical strategy, these sorts
of accusations reflect moral deficiency. As Christians, we are called to love
each other (John 13:34-35) and be reconciled to one another (2 Corinthians
5:20), but accusations such as these reflect neither love nor a concern for
unity within the Body of Christ. Some time ago I posted some guidelines for
discussing the emerging church. These standards ought really apply to every
conversation between Christians, especially this one.
So what are Grudem’s motivations? What are we
complementarians really up to? The clearest motivation is for men and women
to find joy and harmony by living in adherence to Scripture. Take these quotes for
example:
“I hope this book will enable women to rejoice once again
that God has made them women, and men to rejoice once again that God has made
them men. I hope that we will be able to look at each other once again as
brothers and sisters in God’s family and feel something of the joy that God
felt just after He first created us male and female (Gen 1:31)” Grudem in EFBT,
page 19.
“We want to help Christians recover a noble vision of
manhood and womanhood as God created them to be…
We hope that thousands of Christian women who read this book
will come away feeling affirmed and encourage to participate much more actively
in many ministries, and to contribute their wisdom and insight to the family
and the church. We hope they feel fully equal to men in status before
God, and in importance to the family and the church. We pray that, at the same
time, this vision of equality and complementarity will enable Christian women
to give wholehearted affirmation to Biblically balanced male leadership in the
home and in the church…
If that happens, then perhaps the path will be opened for
clearing away much confusion, for diffusing much frustration over male-female
relationships, and for healing many of the heartaches that smolder deep without
direction on how to understand our wonderful gift of sexual complementarity.”
Grudem & Piper in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, page
xiv. The entire page is worth reading (it is the first book listed).
“The subtitle of this little book is ‘Manhood and Womanhood
Defined According to the Bible.’ What this means is that I have made
every effort to bring the thinking of this book into accord with what the Bible
teaches.” Piper in What’s the Difference? Page 14.
In EFBT, Grudem stresses that this is an issue of obedience
to the Bible: “In this generation, one of those tests is whether we will be
faithful to God in the teaching of His Word on matters of manhood and
womanhood… Today, by the controversy over manhood and womanhood, God is testing
all of His people, all of His churches. The egalitarian alternative would be
easy to adopt in today’s culture, and it can appear on the surface to make so
little difference. But will we remain faithful to the Word of God?” Grudem in EFBT,
page 56.
In a sense, this is about power. The Complementarian view is
an attempt to submit to the powerful authority of God’s Word. We see ourselves
recognizing God’s standards over our culture’s. Wise wives are called to live
in submission to responsible husbands who love their wives just as Christ loved
the church. Neither role is easy, but that is God’s standard for us.
I was going to continue by explaining Complementarian
methodology, but I’ve taken up enough space as it is. So that will be my next
post…
Related posts:
- EFBT: Complementarian Methodology
- EFBT 1: A Summary of the Complementarian Position
- EFBT 2.2: Men and Women in Ministry
- EFBT 2.1: Men and Women in the Church
- EFBT: What Does Biblical Hierarchy in Marriage Look Like?
- EFBT: An Argument for Hierarchy
Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
September 16th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
You write: “Thus far we’ve provided a positive case for the Complementarian view of biblical manhood and womanhood through summarizing Wayne Grudem’s arguments in Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth. ”
I'm not sure what you mean by this, since technically I can argue that I can provide a positive view based on any worldview I hold whether evil or good, biblical or not. What it sounds like you are saying is that your “critique” of Grudem and his views is positive in of itself–that you do not take issue with any of his conclusions, implications, or hermeneutics.
Or perhaps when you write “Thus Far” what you mean to communicate is that you've done the positive thing, and now you plan on raising your questions, critiques, etc…
As you probably know, there are good, solid, biblically sound works out there that would take issue with Grudem. Your “summaries” have been interesting. I disagree with the Biblical interpretation, but glad for the ways it can challenge me. From your summaries, it seems that Grudem falls short in understanding Paul, and the “biblical” framework for gender relations and 'roles'.
You also write: This is a common liberal strategy for dismissing arguments instead of thinking critically about them: label someone or their view with derogatory terms and it is then no longer necessary to deal their arguments. (Not that conservatives do not occasionally use this strategy, but it is far more common from the liberal side.)
The use of labels is frankly a ploy used by both conservatives and liberals. If anything, i would argue the exact opposite to be true: that in recent years (especially since 2000), conservatives have used this ploy far more readily than liberals have. We engage a war on terror, where a select group of conservatives have hijacked our language where taking issue with the conduct of the war or even the proxy wars we fight, would deem us as terrorists (if you're not with us, you're against us has been the basic rallying cry of the Bush administration in the war on terror).
September 16th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
This is Micah. I can't remember my darn password to log in
I'd be interested to know why this particular issue seems to be such a priority for this apologetics website. I hope I don't come across as critical. But it's not necessarily an obvious fit. This issue is certainly important, but it seems more of an intermural debate rather than one of the more fundamental divides between Christian orthodoxy and its adversaries.
Particularly given Roger's interest in and thoughtful exposition of Lewis the “mere” Christian, the continued focus on gender issues seems odd (though Lewis did address the issue briefly in MC). Perhaps there are a great many people citing male/female issues as their primary stumbling block to coming to faith, or perhaps there is some other reason. Overall it's your blog and you can do as you like of course. I was just curious.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
It's been a positive case thus far in that it's building a case rather than defending one. The point hasn't been to respond to criticisms but to put forward the claims with their supports. As an example, negative apologetics is defending the faith, positive apologetics is putting forward arguments for why one should believe it. The “negative apologetic” for the complementarian position will follow the positive one that's already been provided.
As I acknowledged, some conservative have used the rhetorical strategy, and I agree that in some cases the issue of the war on terror is an example of that. But I think you're exaggerated the example. We all use labels, but the difference is how we use them. When I listen to Air America (Franklen, Rhodes), I generally hear liberals use labels to dismiss their opposition. When I listen to KRLA (Prager, Hewitt), I usually hear conservatives use labels to better understand their opposition and then engage their ideas. Prager's article I linked to puts forwards a good enough case that I don't think I need to add to it. (My intention hear is not to equate political liberalism with theological liberalism, but to note the similarities.)
The label of liberal, in this case, matters because the liberal approach to the Bible is less submissive than the conservative approach. The complementarian view rests on a strong foundation of Biblical authority (the complete testimony of scripture), while the egalitarian view rests on a subjective foundation of Biblical authority- subjective to that which is socially acceptable.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Hey Micah,
Well, this isn't purely an apologetics website. Note that apologetics is only one of many categories listed on the left. Our general purpose is to take a stand for truth. Sometimes that involves apologetics, others it invovles philosophy, theology, ethics, etc.
In this case, I see this issue's importance in terms of ministry, family, and culture. An incorrect view of men and women has a devastating impact on all three realms. I think Mary Kassian's book, The Feminist Mistake, does a great job of showing this (my interview with her is listed on the right). This is an issue that impacts all of us and I think that too many people are afraid to touch it because the complementarian view is politically incorrect. Even if all we do is get people to think more critically about the issues, it's worth our time.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:00 am
As a conservative, of course you believe that the use of labels on behalf of conservatives is “to better understand their opposition” and that liberals “use labels to dismiss their opposition.” As a non-conservative, I would argue the exact opposite…. but that's just a side point.
You also write, “the egalitarian view rests on a subjective foundation of Biblical authority- subjective to that which is socially acceptable.”
I can't disagree any more with this conclusion and implication. One can have an egalitarian view (which I do) and base it purely on a strong foundation of Biblical authority.
The complementarian approach is probably easier to hold on to, especially with a surface reading of scripture. I suppose, it would be similar to the doctrine of trinity. I can probably defend against the doctrine of trinity using scripture. But going deeper and understanding the full cannon, as well as the intention of the author will reveal that there is a strong case for the trinity. Similarly, an egalitarian approach is difficult on a first/surface read, but a deeper study would reveal that it has a strong biblical foundation.
I'm about to be general here: When I read articles or books written by those who hold an egalitarian view, they do a much better job at scripture study, whereas those who hold a Complementarian view tend to proof text as convenient.
Finally, I have had the same question as Micah–my understanding is that this site was primarily about apologetics. but I guess it's not.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I'm fine with disagreeing about who uses labels to dismiss their opposition, as long as we can agree that such a strategy is wrong and counter-productive.
Do you have any examples of “convenient” complementarian proof texts?
September 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
This is from GD.
Over the course of the past five posts, some questions have been raised as to Grudem’s (and, in general, complementarians’) motivations for making these arguments. Specifically, he has been charged with being “power-hungry” and “politically manipulative;” as well as “divisive and coercive.”
I said these things in the context of the discussion, and even took exact quotes out of Grudem's book to back up my assertions.
Just for the record.
This is a common liberal strategy for dismissing arguments instead of thinking critically about them: label someone or their view with derogatory terms and it is then no longer necessary to deal their arguments. (Not that conservatives do not occasionally use this strategy, but it is far more common from the liberal side.) Along those lines, most accusations about power grabs betray a postmodern/liberal worldview.
You're trying to trick me, aren't you?
If you accuse me of being a “liberal”, that will intimidate me, because women are scaredy-cats.
Then I'll be afraid to point out error when I see it.
And that will prove that women are poor guardians of truth/doctrine because they value unity more than the truth.
I'm not falling for that. I'm not a liberal. I don't have a post-modern viewpoint. I'm willing to deal with the arguments. Plus, what you call “derogatory” comments were blunt statements of reality based on Grudem's actual writings.
these sorts of accusations reflect moral deficiency. As Christians, we are called to love each other (John 13:34-35) and be reconciled to one another (2 Corinthians 5:20), but accusations such as these reflect neither love nor a concern for unity within the Body of Christ.
Grudem says that one of men's strong qualities is that they don't value unity and are willing to argue.
Love and reconciliation do not involve agreeing with people who have wrong ideas, although those virtues certainly involve being reasonably considerate of people's feelings. I have not been unduly unkind, nor do I intend to personally insult people on this particular board.
Grudem makes money off his book sales, he speaks at universities and churches, the CBMW endorses his ideas, and he must accept that his public views will be publically disputed. He believes that his views are worth the pain and division that are being reaped in the Christian community. And that leaves people with no choice but to respond.
These standards ought really apply to every conversation between Christians, especially this one.
I feel that complementarians retreat to pleas such as this when things get heated. Grudem himself says, however, that people's feelings are not to be considered in pressing the cause of complementarianism on churches. We're talking about that very book, correct?
So what are Grudem’s motivations? What are we complementarians really up to? The clearest motivation is for men and women to find joy and harmony by living in adherence to Scripture.
The motivation for female circumcision in Africa is that it makes girls “cleaner” and more fertile. There are Africans who believe their daughters will be infertile without FGM.
Muslims claim that they require women to wear the hijab because it protects them. Women wear a heavy, stifling garment that restricts their movement and vision because Islam is loving and protecting them.
Grudem wants us to believe that he, also, has good intentions, and that his opinions are the only way to interpret and obey scripture. Is it possible he has good intentions but wrong ideas?
In a sense, this is about power. The Complementarian view is an attempt to submit to the powerful authority of God’s Word. We see ourselves recognizing God’s standards over our culture’s. Wise wives are called to live in submission to responsible husbands who love their wives just as Christ loved the church. Neither role is easy, but that is God’s standard for us.
That is a very simplistic summary of complementarianism. If that was all complementarians were saying, I would probably not be here commenting on your blog. Grudem's and Piper's book would certainly not be 800 pages long. Discussions of church government, missionaries, women's secular roles, biblical interpretation of the creation story, whether women should write books on theology, the roles of members of the Trinity, and any number of other issues would not be happening in all corners of the web.
Here's a link to to my sorry little blog:
http://gorhendadblog.blogspot.com/
September 18th, 2006 at 6:49 am
Man down! Man down! Where'd Timbo go? The A-team is more of a Miami Vice team now, with only two members…
Sorry this has nothing to do with complementarianism.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Micah, I'd just like to add that part of the emphasis is circumstantial. When we were posting a normal number of posts a week, one post a week on the Grudem book didn't seem like much when we started out. Now that Roger and I have been posting less, I am concerned about this subject taking over the site. That wasn't our intention when we began.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
This comment is wicked tangential.
Wait, talk radio hosts are an accurate sample of political liberals and conservatives? I don't think that talk radio jockeys are generally representative, but if they are, it doesn't bode well for America, in my opinion. Hewitt, Prager, and Medved are more calm than most folks on Air America, but that's not a great standard for the sake of comparison. Keep listening to KRLA after Hewitt and you'll get Michael Savage, who in my opinion is the worst pundit I've ever heard and has a severely detrimental affect on the political conversation — or at least political conversations between my brother and I. Or listen to Rush Limbaugh who has used the word “liberal” as an epithet for almost two decades now. The list could go on for both sides.
I'd say let's leave talk radio hosts behind in such discourse. They generate more heat than light, in my opinion. Reasonable and reasoned arguments aren't as valued as sensationalism in that realm. I'd love to put Rhodes and Coulter in a jar and shake it. (I know Coulter doesn't have her own show, but she makes lots of guest appearances.)
September 18th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
“I'd love to put Rhodes and Coulter in a jar and shake it.”
Not to be
complementariansexist, but I'd pay money to see Coulter and Rhodes duke it out for twelve rounds in what would have to be billed as the Catfight of the Century.September 18th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I was captured by Colonel Decker and have joined the cast of The Misfits of Science.
If Amy and Roger are Miami Vice, which one would be Crockett and which one would be Tubbs?