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?

When one writes for awhile on the subject of gender and Biblical equality, one wonders whether all the words sound just a little too negative when all that is meant is to try to make things just a little better in church, at home, and in the world at large. So it’s good every now and then to take stock of one’s spiritual situation, and at the moment I’m thinking that I need to count the ways that my church is doing right despite its complementarian ways. Here goes.

We preach the gospel. The sermons are understandable to seekers and young Christians alike because theological jargon is explained. The pastor is creative in the way he presents his sermons, including video and audio clips, Powerpoints and other technology helps. Songs and scripture are displayed on big screens. We’re growing so fast we’ve gone to two services over the last year. The leadership takes chances. We are creative in the places we look for additional staff, including a retired Air Force fighter pilot and past director of the area Youth for Christ who was looking to volunteer at a church. We have a four-base system which are introductory seminars that teach Christian discipleship basics. Deeper levels are being planned. Many members have been through Walk Through the Bible where the Bible is read in one year. We sing contemporary praise songs with occasional older pieces/hymns. We’ve always had a great rock and roll band. We are very active in the community with outreach ministries such as Boy Scouts, a baseball diamond on the premises which we let local teams use free of charge, Helping Hands which helps those who are in need, an active AA group, a preschool in the building five days a week, a coffee house and concert ministries which bring up-and-coming rock bands to perform in the evening, a very active summer daily vacation Bible school, close connections with Youth for Christ, support for unwed mothers, etc. We have Sunday School for kids and small groups for adults, Tables of Eight (rotating monthly suppers in various homes), Divorce Care, Bible studies that pop up as needs arise, occasional sermon series on topics of the day, such as the upcoming one on the Da Vinci Code book and movie, skits, storytelling and drama in worship, church-led mission groups to foreign countries. It is a church with a mission, to reach the lost and to bring them into Christian maturity. From its start ten years ago, it tried to remove barriers between the unchurched and the way we do things. We dress informally including jeans, but try to have at least one designated suit so those who show up in one won’t feel totally out of it. We sing a contempoary style of music that is not all that different than the kind many unchurched people like. Many of those who come eventually to worship came first to other programs, such as children’s choir programs, Boy Scouts, preschool performance programs, concerts, etc. Although women cannot be on the elder or deacon board, they do lead church ministries, read the Bible at the front during worship, lead the congregation in prayer, teach adult Sunday School and mixed small groups. We built an all-purpose building (the sanctuary is a basketball court) in 2000, added a temporary out-building for additional Sunday School classrooms in 2004 and have already outgrown both. There’s probably more but I’ve run out of steam.

Thank God for strong lampstands that hold up the light. Not bad for a staid denomination like the Reformed Church in America.

It’s tough making personal decisions that cause pain, especially ones that affect close relationships. More women are standing up for themselves, however, when it comes to their long-term goals, and how much better it is to do it early, say, before the marriage, than after. A very good friend of mine just did that, and I’m so impressed. She’s showing herself to be quite the mature young lady.

I’m not so sure that feminists and egalitarians aren’t shooting themselves in the foot when they actively de-emphasize differences between the sexes. In my experience a high percentage of people not only see their spouses as quite different from themselves, but they see more similarities between themselves and their (same-sex) buddies. In fact, their natural tendency is to celebrate those differences and similarities — to have fun with them — to boost their own self-esteem and the self-esteem of those who they love. Even though I’m an egalitarian and hate stereotyping and have a deep need to see the complexity in people, I can still relate to that impulse to see, to try to understand, and to celebrate those differences between the sexes.

At the Christians for Biblical Equality annual conference last year, CBE recognized its inability to attract men, and apparently, would like to correct that weakness. I commend that realization and that desire. I’m not surprised, however, that they’re having trouble. Where does CBE get its inspiration for its behavior patterns and ways of meeting? From church. Their meetings feel like church services. And do most churches have lots of success at attracting males? Not at all. Less than 40 percent of adults in most churches are men and more than 20 percent of married women attend church without their husbands. And CBE is not doing anywhere near that well.

Some observers call men that are attracted to Christian churches “soft males.” They say stallions hang out in bars and geldings hang out in church. They are “tamed men.” In Why Men Hate Going to Church David Murrow quotes Susan Faludi (Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man)concerning her observation of men at a Promise Keepers rally: “If they were plotting the overthrow of a feminist world, they showed no signs of it. Mostly they seemed intent on being mannerly and tidy. In an era when the sports spectators who were the bleachers’ usual clientele left the stadiums littered and vandalized, the Promise Keepers were careful to throw away all their trash. They obediently took notes during the speeches and displayed at all times their Promise Keepers ID bracelets, which looked exactly like the identification bands worn by hospital patients . . . . They were willfully docile, as though, if they just obeyed long enough, they would at last get their reward.”

Murrow: “We’re clean. We’re courteous. We’re conscientious. Above all, we’re nice . . . . Successful Christian living is defined not by the bold actions we take, but by the foolish actions we avoid. It’s not the goals we accomplish, but the sins we escape that make us good Christian men . . . . Real men visit our churches, look around . . . and beat a path to the door.” He goes on to describe the three sorts of men who are missing from our churches: risk takers, fun lovers, and dangerous men (by which he means men who have developed a lifestyle and persona that says “don’t mess with me”). Does your church parking lot fill up with Harleys, Murrow asks, or mud-covered pickup trucks? Does your church have fun that breaks out spontaneously, maybe even in the middle of worship, or do you have a “fellowship” committee that controls the time and place when church members can kick up their heels?

I’m one of those life-long church-going men, an evangelical insider, and such descriptions make me crazy. That said, when I look back over my life and all the churches I’ve attended, I wonder why I have such trouble enjoying church. Of the stuff we say, the way we do things, the behaviors we think are those that make people “spiritual,” much of it seems to me to be designed to make women comfortable and men uncomfortable. Does anyone else have these sorts of thoughts?

Each year in 28 African countries two million girls undergo what is euphemistically called “female circumcision,” but what is really mutilation and excision of the female external genitalia and clitoris (clitorectomy). “One quarter of them die as a result.” [Daughers of Hope by Kay Marshall Strom and Michele Rickett, p. 12]

Page 13: “One of the greatest weapons in the arsenal of the woman’s great adversary has been the prevailing views of religious teachers. Throughout the great religions of the world, there persist teachings that the woman is subhuman, a tool of Satan by which men are led astray. Jewish rabbis and Christian teachers have not been immune to such twisting of truth. Historically they too have been far too quick to devalue God’s precious creation.”

Complementarianism is simply the latest Christian incarnation of this same devaluation of God’s precious creation.

Christians for Biblical Equality has just launched its new blog called “The Scroll.” Its blog team numbers ten to twelve members who are geographically dispursed. CBE is excited about this new foray into a new mode of communication, not only to better get out its message of the Biblical basis for gender equality, but also for the increased opportunity of getting fresh, multiple-viewpoint feedback. Anyone can comment.

I gather that there are disagreements in the egalitarian camp on whether true gender traits exist or are only socializations. On the one hand, society creates differences like boys play with toy trucks and not dolls and girls play dress-up and not fix-it-up. Everybody had better line up and adapt. On the other hand, research says that some differences, not as many as society creates, are real and scientifically measureable. Female babies, for example, are more attracted to human faces and male babies are more attracted to objects. Nearly every sound coming out of girls’ mouths on a playground are words; only 50 percent of the sounds coming from boys on a playground are actual words. Such tests seem to be more valid (untainted by socialization) than, say, differences in math scores or writing sample comprehension scores.

The average guy and gal on the street for the most part seem to just buy both types without thinking. Of course there are differences. But egalitarians tend to argue that all the traits are just sociologically imposed. For example, Tony Campolo argues via Jung and Chinese philosophy (Speaking My Mind, pp. 47-54) that these are imposed traits and the restrictions should be fought. He posits Jesus as the perfectly balanced yin and yang person. Evangelicals should abandon stereotypical differentiations of female and male and should work toward achieving the healthy balance that goes with complete personhood.

Is the average gal and guy going to buy that approach? I wonder. The worst insult you can give a guy is to say he does something “like a girl.” Those kinds of socializations go on all the time in locker rooms. Maybe a better approach would be to help each gender to see that they already have traits of both genders within themselves, to varying degrees and that these variations are good. Where imbalance occurs and the person can see where it hinders life, then balance can be sought.

However the approach, I like Tony’s summary of this topic: “We need an alternative to both the male chauvinism that too often has expressed itself in evangelicalism and the radical feminism that, in my opinion, simply tries to imitate the imbalanced traits of yang-oriented males, which are all too evident in our society. That alternative is allowing ourselves to be transformed into what He is.” [p.54]

by Francis Thompson

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him down the arches of the years;
I fled Him down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbed pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They bear — and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet –
“All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.”

Does God have a dark side? Would he punish or even damn souls who don’t surrender to Him in this life? Even those who never heard? No second chances? Even in the afterlife? What looks like injustice to us is also injustice to God. There is no “higher” God justice that is comprehensable to us only as injustice. I John 1:5: “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.” TNIV Do we really want to assign evil traits to a good God? Why would anyone who wants the Good, be attracted to such a God?

It’s not God that has the dark side. It’s the theologians that say these things.

After Tony Campolo speaks to Christians at church or other gatherings about marriage and family, as he is asked now and then to do, he often gets a man who stands up and says, “But you haven’t answered the real question…. Who’s supposed to be the head of the house?”

Should Christians ever ask who is going to be master? Tony wonders. Especially in the light of what Jesus said in Mark 9:35: “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” TNIV