No Middle Ground?
Reviews are coming out now on the two big recent 2005 books in the evangelical feminism and biblical manhood and womanhood shootout. Evangelical Quarterly [78.1 (2006), 65-84] has an article, “Biblical truth and biblical equality: a review article on two recent books from IVP on evangelical feminism and biblical manhood and womanhood,” reviewed by four evangelical scholars, which reviews Wayne Grudem’s book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth and a symposium of papers from some twenty different authors, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis.
One might expect that when two books are published in the same year from the two separate camps that the two works might engage each other in true discussion. What strikes the editor of the review article, John Wilks (London School of Theology), about these two books is how much they do not engage each other, but in fact talk past each other. Grudem’s book is aggressive, constantly challenging and “throwing down the gauntlet,” while the compilation is much less confrontational. The former book tries to counter 118 or 119 egalitarian claims, about 80 percent having to do with interpreting the biblical text. Only a few of these arguments are counter-argued, showing Grudem’s inconsistencies, failure to understand the depth of the egalitarian argument, and his over-assuredness of his interpretation when the biblical text doesn’t have much historical or philological support. But where he is really taken to task is his unsupported assertions that “there is something inherent in maleness that makes men suitable for leadership. What is it? Men’s ‘greater willingness to disagree openly… does suit them for the task of guarding doctrine and condemning error.’ This presupposes that (a) identifying heresy is a, if not the, primary task for a leader; (b) such an aptitude is based on gender rather than personality or gifting; (c) open disagreement is the best or only way to deal with such an issue. Can these claims be substantiated?” Of course they can’t and it is quite understandable that many Christian individuals would be horrified at such a definition of “leadership.”
While complementarians do take the egalitarian arguments to task, especially disliking the way they take modern culture and historical developments into account. They call them “Catholic” approaches, but they could just as well be called Wesleyan. Maybe these approaches are just non-literalistic, aiming toward the concept/principle level rather than being overly concerned with individual word interpretations that have inadequate usage support, making it impossible to discover a one-and-only true connotational meaning.
But what the complementarians really don’t understand is why egalitarians consistently over time refuse to recognize their recent development of a “middle ground,” a sort of non-hierarchical/only ultimately hierarchical position, within which their main leadership support (Grudem) invents “seven limitations to wifely submission.” They don’t understand why egalitarian writers avoid seriously engaging or even mentioning their new less ugly alternatives and call this avoidance the “fallacy of the excluded middle,” that is, giving only the extremes as alternatives when there is in fact other alternatives (their new “middle” inventions).
My experience is that egalitarians are not at all shy about their suspicions about these “new middles” complementarians are so happy with. Egalitarians really don’t see these “new” approaches as significantly different from the old hierarchy. They say things like “soft patriarchy is still patriarchy.” They inevitably have painful stories of inflictions purpetrated on them by the “new patriarchs.” If the complementarians “allow women” (just listen to that demeaning language!) to pray publicly or even preach (here’s even another middle that’s being touted by some: gifts are in but leadership is out), but keep them out of the church board room, how can a dispassionate observer not come to the conclusion that it’s nothing more than a control ploy? When the new system continues to treat women as children, as excluded from the main decision-making bodies that affect the whole church, how can complementarians be surprised at the egalitarian ho-hum-not-again response?
Why did I name this post “No Middle Ground?” Many evangelicals on both sides of this issue seriously wonder whether a middle ground of agreement is possible. Both sides think that the other side is sinning. Neither side feels the import of what the other is saying. As we have seen in this review, even the theologians are talking past each other. Can there be no rapprochement?
Right now, probably not. Logical arguments are not going to carry the day, despite the issue’s participants’ verbiage. This is an issue that must be experienced from the other’s viewpoint. There’s apparently some statistical evidence out there now that indicates that headship-believing evangelicals are living like egalitarians within the family. Just what does that look like? Is the rank-and-file ahead of its leadership or does the complementarian “middle approach” in fact turn out marriage behaviors that look very similar to egalitarian behaviors? If so, can that be translated into church behaviors?
I recently googled “gender in heaven” because one of the things I’m struggling with is the eternal function of feminine subordination if one follows the complementarian logic to its conclusion. In that process, I found a church website that said to the effect:
“We are both complementarian and egalitarian! Our structure is complementarian, but we love egalitarians and seek to find ways for them to express their gifts. However, senior leadership is reserved for men.”
How can intelligent, rational people “submit” to such contradictions? How can people with renewed minds and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit accept such logical fallacies? It’s almost enough to make me doubt the what the Bible promises about the Holy Spirit.
This is so painful. I keep praying for God to release me from the burden. Shouldn’t I be more grieved about genocide in the Sudan or the war in Iraq? Are there other women in complementarian churches who are struggling like I am?
My pastor recently said there is discussion about whether women can even lead worship songs. “We want to be safe,” he said, “in case that means the women are exercising authority over the men.”
In the same breath, he said that he’s so happy with our church’s model for leadership. “There is no senior pastor; no hierarchy. We practice mutual submission.”
I wanted to say, “So, how does this work? Who gets the ‘tie-breaking vote?’ If mutual submission can work at the top of church leadership, why can’t it work in marriage? Why are husbands denied the opportunity to experience mutual submission in marriage?
Oh, the contradictions!
Could you be more specific as to how Grudem’s work does not “engage” the other side? That seems like a rather odd statement when, as you reported, Grudem’s book seeks to answer 118 egalitarian claims. Apart from a positive presentation of the complementarian position in chapters 1 and 2, practically the entire book is about “engaging” egalitarianism.
While it was mentioned that both books did not “engage” each other no critique of Pierce and Groothuis’ book was reported, other than that theirs was “much less confrontational.”
What is meant by saying “Only a a few of these arguments are counter-argued, showing Grudem’s inconsistencies, failure to understand the depth of the egalitarian argument, and his over-assuredness of his interpretation when the biblical text doesn’t have much historical or philological support”? Examples?
As far as the insinuation that complementarians are more “literalistic” while egalitarians aim “toward the concept/principle level rather than being overly concerned with individual word interpretations that have inadequate usage support” - Grudem says the following in his book, p. 91:
“We must recognize that God in His wisdom has given us a Bible that specifies *many principles* for conduct and gives some *specific examples* of application…What then should we do? First, we should understand the principles that allow certain activities and understand the principles that prohibit other activities. Then between these parameters, we should attempt to make a mature judment based on the wisdom God gives us and our knowledge of the situation.”
Much more can be said concerning what you wrote above. Maybe some other time.
I look forward to reading the review once my seminary library receives it.
In Christ,
Jorge
This is my first time on this website but what a great resource! Kathy, I am with you. It makes me crazy how these churches think they are being so ‘egalitarian-ish’ by saying they don’t emphasize male leadership even though that’s how the whole thing runs. I no longer attend a hierarchical church but my mom, (in trying to demonstrate how ‘egalitarian-like’ her complementarian church was) told me about a woman who leads a very fruitful small group in her church. The senior pastor thought she was very gifted and said he would call her a Pastor (she’s that gifted! is how my mom would put it) but, he says ‘we aren’t into titles here’. They always like to say how they aren’t into titles but hummmmm, somehow they still have their titles and salaries, etc… very hypocritical. Of course, everyone thinks it’s just wonderful. They think, how kind the pastor is being - comparing this woman to a real pastor. It’s almost cutesy. I don’t know why that bugs me so much — I think my mom probably thinks I’m way too sensitive.
I read an article from a complementarian pastor who laments the way marriage is practiced by so called complementarians (too functionally egalitarian). He thinks it’s the evil influence of the feminist culture. I think it may be the gospel actually affecting people and causing them to treat others as better than themselves. At least that is what I’m hoping, that the gospel wins out instead of some wierd hybrid-patriarchal model.
I feel frustrated for being grieved about this too. I keep waiting for it to pass. I think, I’ll get over it, forgive and forget. It won’t bug me, etc.. hasn’t happened yet in the last 2 years. If anything, it’s intensified. I heard Hybels of Willow Creek talk on a topic called ‘holy discontent’. He said, if there is some issue out there that you can’t lose, there is probably a reason. It’s your ‘holy discontent’. God wants you to use it to do something. Don’t let it embitter you, use it for his glory. So, I rest in that. Perhaps it’s not so awful that the issue is staying with me. Perhaps it will make me more sensitive to people who are oppressed, judged, stereotyped. Perhaps, it will make me a better Christian.
Ah, Kathy, I’m sorry, and I hear you. And I love the Hybels comment. Holy discontent? Is that what this is? What an interesting phrase.
The woman small-group leader is “allowed” to lead, as the original post puts it. That is part of the problem. Of course, there is a sense in which everyone is “allowed” to do what they do, otherwise church would be a bit of a free-for-all, but the difference is that the woman is being allowed by the men to do something.
Yuck.
I know that comment wasn’t too helpful. Just venting.
Hi, Hope. I’m with you, so grieved and waiting and praying for it to pass. I can’t leave my church, but I do walk out sometimes. The women in my church are paralyzed for fear of not submitting.
Ironically, I’ve been praying like Moses in Numbers 11, when he told God he’d had it and asked God to go ahead and kill him. And God said, “Bring 70 men to me and I’ll put my Spirit in them and you won’t have to bear this alone.”
Let’s pray that God will put his Spirit in people around us so we don’t have to bear it alone.
Peace!
Re talking past each other: John Wilks, the article’s editor, says this: “What particularly struck me, though, after reading both books and all four reviews, is the way these two volumes seem to talk past one another…. As bizarre as it might seem, even EFBT [Grudem’s book] leaves me with this impression, for all its continual citation of the egalitarian argument, rebuttal of the proposals and the call to be refuted in turn. This is not an invitation to a discussion but a gauntlet thrown down in a challenge…. EBT [the other book] is not written as a response to Complementarianism as such, and so it is not so surprising that it does not attempt to refute it in the way that Grudem has set out his book.” Of course they were also published in the same year and would have been in development during approximately the same time.
Just because one side of an issue insists that the other side play by their rules does not mean that they will or even must. Ways of argumentation can be very different and people will insist on being themselves. One of the egalitarian reviewers says this: “It appears to me that evangelical egalitarians talk much more effectively when they refuse the parameters of debate which is laid down by the claim ‘the Bible says…’. In taking the unexamined claims that underlie the textual interpretations to task, and… showing the logical inconsistencies that shape them, there is much more opportunity for a productive discussion.” There’s quite a bit of wisdom there. You would think that linguistic approaches to hermeneutics would make one humble about interpreting the Bible, but it apparently makes some people cocksure. So maybe a more philological/logical approach will reveal a path both sides can go down.
I just want to thank you for your blog site. I am a Christian feminist (wish there was a better word for my stance) and about 2 years ago God put on my heart a very strong calling to encourage women to serve the LORD in whatever capacity He has called them, whether pastor, preacher, prophet or teacher and God forbid those who stand in their way. Women called to these positions by God will have to answer to Him as to why they didn’t fulfill their purpose and it will be heartbreaking to hear them say, “because my husband/pastor/father/mother told me that I shouldn’t teach others because I’m a woman.” Likewise, those who discouraged these women from their calling will also have to account for their actions. What a legacy of waste and shame for them all!
I certainly subscribe to respect for both sexes, but I see a glaring and unreasonable difference in the Church regarding the treatment of women. Frankly, to see women cheated out of their true calling in Christ fills me with righteous anger, especially when Christian women are being abused physically, mentally and emotionally by their husbands and other males. Then, to make it even more abhorrant, when these abused women approach their male pastors for help, they are reminded wrongfully that the man is their spiritual head and they need to submit to him. I even know of one pastor who said to an abused female in his concregation, “If he (her husband) kills you, it will be to the glory of God.” Intolerable! One man I met recently at a Christian singles event actually said that it’s “dangerous to empower women.” Arrrgh!
There should be no demoralization, humilation or abuse in the Church of God and this cancer in the Body of Christ has to stop. Thank you for your views and your blog. Fight the good fight for women everywhere in Christ Jesus!
Thank you, Jennifer. May God bless you in your work.
I think it is wise of Christian women to be careful how they react to male inappropriateness in deed and word. What’s behind the incident? Even if the choice of words could have been better or the overly friendly push/nudge/slap even more inappropriate, how does one react? One does need to speak up, but how does one communicate a correction so that it is understood and not just negatively reacted to? Did you push back in any of those situations mentioned? Sometimes it might be wise to say nothing, but to raise an eyebrow. Or to comment indirectly, as in, “And I’m supposed to react to that postively?” Or stronger yet: “I didn’t appreciate that.” Also, what is said in private can be much more tailored than what is most wisely said in public.
For example, a friend of mine was about to give her first presentation to her co-workers who were 100% male and weren’t used to working as equals with a woman. One of them wanted to give her a warning about the instability of a table she was about to sit on, and he said something (perhaps not picking the best words to express it) like “Watch where you put your big ol’ butt. That table might collapse.” She took it as an insult, a put-down designed to put her off her game. But perhaps he just meant to treat her casually like one of the guys and to give her a friendly warning.
As a professional in a scientific field, my wife interacts mainly with men on the job. She’s put up with lots of inappropriate “joshing” and insults and impolite comments. Most men come to respect her professionally, like the administrator who called her a b—- in a public forum but not in front of her. While she knew she should be offended, she also took it as a compliment that he was taking her as a force to be reckoned with. She said nothing, but continued to interact forcefully and professionally with him until a grudging respect developed.
They all know that she doesn’t appreciate coarse language, that most usually modify their language around her. A few, however, some of her best friends, in fact, talk strongly/wildly/inappropriately to her just to challenge her and get her to rise to the professional battle at hand, which she is happy to do. What’s the issue? Are they just plain being demeaning in action or words? Then shake the dust off your feet, pick your words carefully but make them few, and certainly don’t give such people any of your money.
The poor grunting, scratching, inarticulate male co-worker or neighbor down the street is less to be feared than the philosophizing theologian who creates grand biblical sounding schemes with beautiful words to demean women and to keep them in their place and out of the boardroom. Most professions and workplaces in American have already fought this battle and most of the more egregious behaviors will get one demoted, fired or put in jail. Now the gentler varieties of the same have got to be rooted out of the church consistory, session, board room and/or “business meetings.”