My last post on motivation leads us to consider our methodology. We claim to seek adherence to Scripture, but how are we doing this? I’m afraid some split the Bible into “Egalitarian verses” and “Complementarian verses.” There is no such dichotomy in Scripture. The whole of Scripture teaches a complex, yet uniform view of how men and women can best live lives glorifying to God.

We must allow the Bible to inform our view, not form the Bible according to what we’d like it to teach. The Bible is our first and final authority for theology and practice. It is first in that we must begin with what it reveals to us before pursuing other sources of knowledge. It is final in that if it conflicts with any other source of knowledge, the Bible wins.

So, because the Bible is of such authority, we look to it for an explanation of the proper functions of men and women. The wrong way to answer this question would be to pick and choose verses that we are comfortable with, and conform the uncomfortable ones to them. Instead, we must look at the complete testimony of Scripture on the subject and discern guiding principles that we can apply to everyday life.

In doing this, we must begin with basic hermeneutical principles, such as:

1)      Scripture is a commentary unto itself.

2)      Scripture never contradicts itself.

3)      Clearer Scriptures should be used to interpret those that are less clear.

Especially in this case, we must also discern between didactic or exhortive passages and narrative or historical passages. Narrative passages do often have the intention of instruction, but they do not usually provide the explicit guiding principles that didactic passages do. So, in general, we look to didactic passages that provide guidelines that should be supported, or at least not conflicted, by narrative passages.

So here’s the method in action: The case we’ve made in previous posts is that the Bible provides specific roles for men and women in church and marriage. Here are a few:

•     Men and women, though unique in many ways, are of equal value because they are made in God’s image (Gen 1:27).

•     Husbands are the head (authority) of their wives (1 Corinthians 11:3)

•     Husbands are ultimately responsible for their families (Gen 3:9)

•     Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22)

•     Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25)

•     Women are not to perform the role of elder, which includes teaching the Bible in the assembled church (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

•     Elders should be men with no more than one wife (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6)

What about the narrative passages that give us examples of women functioning with God’s blessing? We believe none of these passages conflict with the above biblical principles that make up the Complementarian position…

Judges 5:4-5- Deborah was a judge with the gift of prophecy appointed by God whom the people of Israel sought for wisdom. Many people believe this passage attributes political authority to Deborah, I think that’s unclear. Regardless, I’ve seen no biblical principle restricting women from having political authority, so this does not conflict with women not teaching in the assembled church, nor them having ruling authority in the church (eldership). Neither is there any restriction on women regarding the possession of spiritual gifts. The Bible teaches that women can have (and have had) the gift of prophecy as well as men (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). So there is nothing in this example that conflicts with the Complementarian understanding of Scripture.

Romans 16:1-2- Phoebe is described as a deaconess or minister. Without getting too far off track, the office of deacon is not a ruling office of the church; it is distinct from elder. I believe the Bible is rather clear that women are restricted from the office of elder, but I see no restriction against the office of deacon. Complementarians differ on this matter, but I find Andreas Kostenberger’s reasoning compelling. (I’m not sure what Grudem’s position is yet.)

We’ve only covered the first two chapters of Grudem’s book. Chapters 3-13 will offer defenses of the Complementarian position against Egalitarian objections, so I don’t want to go too far down that road at this point. However, I hope that these examples are enough to show the Complementarian methodology (at least how I understand it) as a sound paradigm for understanding the complete testimony of Scripture on this matter.

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…

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.

Often, when people think of the word "hierarchy," they immediately visualize a military chain of command where one person barks out his unquestioned orders and is immediately obeyed.  It's no wonder, then, that people are confused--or even angry--when complementarian Christians say they believe that a "hierarchy" wherein the husband is the leader is the right way to structure a marriage.  Even worse, when those who do believe in a husband's leadership have an unbiblical idea of what hierarchy entails, the result can be misery--especially for women.

For this "Gender Friday" installment, then, I'm going to clarify what I mean by the term "hierarchy" so there's no misunderstanding about what I'm actually promoting.  To begin with, instead of a military image, I would like to offer two, more appropriate models from everyday life that I think far more accurately illustrate different aspects of biblical hierarchy within a marriage.  After that, I'll briefly summarize the counter-cultural, biblical context for all Christian leadership, within which a marital hierarchy must be viewed.

First, I think it's helpful to look at how hierarchy works in a healthy place of business.  Most of us are familiar with the qualities of an excellent boss.  He or she manages, motivates, and brings people together in a way that encourages the greatest unity, growth, creativity, productivity, and satisfaction among the employees for the good of the company as a whole.  We know what it means to accept and even respect and submit to a good leader in the business arena.  On the other hand, a bad boss tries to do everything himself (even if there's an employee who's more qualified), or he micromanages every detail of his employees' work, or he intimidates his employees into becoming useless yes-men. 

You've most likely also seen a well-functioning hierarchy in your experiences with friends.  We've all been in groups of friends where one person will emerge as the leader--not in that he gives orders to everyone or demands they pay homage to him, he just takes on the responsibility for the group.  His leadership is natural, not oppressive; he doesn't call attention to his position, but simply ensures the unity of the group.  He sees that decisions are made, he keeps things moving, he makes sure the others are enjoying themselves, and they look to him to resolve things.  In short, he is serving them (not himself) by leading.

Grudem describes this same key idea of responsibility in his discussion of hierarchy.  The husband is to take on this role of overseer for the family with the idea that the buck stops with him.  Whatever decisions are made that affect the family as a whole, he bears the responsibility as the representative of the family before God.  Just as the good leader of a business will empower and encourage the other employees to flourish with creativity and skill to the best of their ability (especially in the areas where they are more skilled than the leader) and yet still bear the weight of responsibility for the working body as a whole, so the husband is to do the same with the members of his family.

In addition to the idea of responsibility, no hierarchy within a marriage is biblical if the leader is not himself directed by the three central ideas of...   more »