Jeremy Pierce
I would advise complementarians to recognize that John Piper and Wayne Grudem are complementarians trying to find their way in applying complementarianism in a complex world and that what they say need not (and should not, despite most egalitarians’ criticisms) be taken as “what complementarians think”. Many complementarians disagree with some of their particular applications without disagreeing with complementarianism. And we need to remind critics that egalitarians say things much sillier and more damaging to the gospel and to the Bible than anything we can find in Piper or Grudem. Consider Evans’ book, for starters. But, that being said, I think the Piper-Grudem introduction to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is one of the weakest sections of that book. The actual engagement with the biblical texts is very well done. Some (but not all) of the other material is not so careful.
"But, that being said, I think the Piper-Grudem introduction to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is one of the weakest sections of that book."
ReplyDeleteIt seems he is referring to the chapter that has also been published separately as a booklet called 'What's the Difference'.
If this is the chapter I'm surprised that he thinks so lowly of it, since myself and others who I have spoken with think that this is one of the best chapters in the whole book.
It implicitly argues that what it means to be male and female is not limited to the home or Sunday morning, but applies more broadly to all spheres of life. Until Christians understand this point they will forever see "complementarianism" as an arbitrary list of restrictions, or will be shallow folk who follow arbitrary rules whilst entirely missing the point of them.
What possibly could be Mr Pierce's objection to this chapter?
As Southern Baptist theological Albert Mohler states, "The arguments used in support of the ordination of women require the dismissal or "reinterpretation" of specific biblical texts which disallow women in the teaching office. The same is true of arguments for the ordination of divorced persons--and for homosexuals." - http://www.albertmohler.com/2003/08/05/women-preachers-divorce-and-a-gay-bishop-whats-the-link
ReplyDeleteThe more you read egalitarian esigesis the more this is seen. In order to negate commands for women to to be in subjection they are relegated to being merely cultural accommodations, plus God the Father is made to be simply the source of Christ, not His head, likewise Christ and the church, with no connection being allowed btwn source and authority.