Monthly Archives: October 2006

Want to get published by Egalitarians? Here’s How …

Christians for Biblical Equality has issued a call for papers for their Winter 2006 issue of Mutuality.  The theme for this issue will be “worship and equality.”  They announce that they “still need authors” for the following topics:

  • The role of spirituals and freedom songs in the long struggle for ethnic equality and justice in the United States
  • Examples of worship leaders in the Bible, like Miriam and David
  • Examples of worship leaders in Church history, like Hildegaard of Bingen
  • Themes of justice and equality in the Psalms, and how the Psalms have influenced the church’s worship
  • Themes of justice and equality in Mary’s Magnificat
  • Reflections on how worship has influenced your understanding of biblical equality and justice, and vice versa
  • Examples of how worship can be a topic of division, but also a source of unity and healing

 Worship via leaders

It will be fascinating to see how the editors of Mutuality view the intersection of worship and “equality.”  What, I wonder, amounts to “worship and inequality?”  Oh, I know!  That tedious business about women never exercising authority or teaching a man somewhere in one of Paul’s minor epistles.  He was having a bad day, right?  Anyhow – women need to be in those pulpits for our worship to have equality.  I’ll bet that’s what’s on their minds. 

But, returning to those topics for which they have no authors, their requests provide some fascinating insights into how egalitarians evaluate and assess various theological things.  Consider …

“Long struggle” is illuminating, as it is defined as extending (at most) back to 1776, or perhaps a few years earlier.  So, if a struggle has gone on for 230 to 250 years, this is a Long Time for an egalitarian.  It helps to keep this in mind, because the Church has been around for 2,000 years, or, possibly, for up to 3,500  years (assuming a 15th Century BC date for the Exodus and incorporating the entirety of Israel in “the Church”).  That’s 8 to 14 times as long as what egalitarians will call “long” in terms of the calendar.

Why is this helpful to know? 

Well, it suggests that perhaps the Mutuality editors cannot apprehend real antiquity, real historical momentum, as one finds in the entirety of the Church.  If they could apprehend this, they would see how novel, how radically Nouveau Chic their egalitarian values actually are in the historical scheme of things.  After all, men have been heads of their families and churches for about 1900 years, maybe a few decades more than that.  But, does this count for anything in the egalitarian scheme of things historical?


Two hundred plus years is about as much as the folks at CBE can reckon for “long time” stuff.  No wonder they can’t appreciate how really long time the patriarchal values have held forth in Christ’s Church.

But, there’s more here …

Did you know that the Old Testament had “worship leaders?”  And that they included women?  And that the Medieval Church had them too?  And that Hildegaard von Bingen was one of them?  I’ll bet this is news to the elders of the tribes of Israel, and to  Asaph, and to Zechariah, as well as to Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, and Obed-Edom, along with Jeiel, Benaiah, and Jahaziel.  And, I bet it was Really News to Popes Eugene III, Anastasius IV, Adrian IV, and Alexander III, since Hildegaard’s writings and music were confined to her convent until after her death. 

But, whatever. 

We have worship leaders today, and they are almost entirely women, right?  So, of course, the Medieval Church must have had some women worship leaders.  And, so too did Israel’s Temple worship.  Just stands to reason, right?  Whatever we have today must have been back there too, right?

And those themes of justice and equality in Mary’s Magnificat?  Wow!  How fantastic, that here in the 21st Century we’re finally learning about that. 

And, you know what??? These themes were in the Psalms too!  Themes of equality in the Psalms, if you can believe it.  Surely we can find someone to author a paper that lays this all out for us.

Worship a topic of division?  Hey, here’s an idea — how about the equality of Agag and the sheep?  Didn’t the Prophet Samuel hew Agag to pieces before the LORD, kind of like the sheep were hewn into pieces at the altar worship? If that isn’t division in worship, I don’t know what is!

And you know why, of course.  It was because Saul and Agag didn’t wait for Samuel to show up for worship.  They went ahead of him (see?  a-HEAD; not WITH Samuel).  So, that most definitely led to multiple divisions of Agag. 

You know, this egalitarian perspective sheds a whole new light on those otherwise confusing (and, seemingly, patriarchal) books of the Old Testament.  Can you imagine those centuries of misled believers who never heard a word about equality until the editors of Mutuality came along to bless God’s Church?  How horrid it must have been! 

Everyone equally praise the Lord, following those mostly female worship leaders!  Today we have Mutuality and those wonderful papers that will appear in the Winter 2006 edition, once they find people to write them.


Filed under Egalitarianism, Polemics, Worship wars

Egalitarian Warriors in the Worship Wars Army

Evangelicalism is roiling on two fronts these days — the “worship wars” and the “gender wars.” These two controversies are connected, but that’s for other posts at this blog.  For now, I wish to point out a fascinating thing:  how an agenda within the “worship wars” is very tightly blended with an agenda in the “gender wars.”   

Egal worship warriorA recent gender wars agenda

Consider an initiative headed up by Robert Webber and Philip Kenyon, both professors at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL.  They style this initiative A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future.  It was the subject of a Christianity Today interview, and as it was taking shape, someone “inside” tipped off the editors at Touchstone.   

David Mills, a senior Touchstone editor, remarked , “We were immediately interested, because bringing to our readers the riches of the shared Christian tradition, especially the doctrinal and moral tradition formed by the Fathers, is what we do, and many of us know and admire the men involved in writing it [viz. “the Call”]. 

I suspect the insider who gave a heads up to the Touchstone folks counted on favorable reaction from Touchstone editors for two reasons: (1) the one Mills mentions, namely a supposedly shared esteem for the Great Tradition and the Fathers of the Church, and (2) the fact that Webber has made a cottage industry of promoting traditional liturgical dynamics within evangelicalism, and the editors of Touchstone are almost all from Christian communions with deep and ancient liturgical roots (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, even “high-church” Calvinism).  

To their everlasting credit, however, the editors of Touchstone quickly discerned that what appeared to be a co-belligerent in the worship wars was actually a deviously deliberate antagonist in the gender wars.  In a forum composed of five evangelical Protestants and one Roman Catholic (Mills), they dismissed the Call for what it is: a sly attempt to fly egalitarianism of the worst sort under the evangelical radar. 

All the Touchstone forum members found the Call to be vague to the point of pointlessness.  Wilfred M. McClay faulted the Call for its “vague appeals to the ancient church.”  Russell D. Moore faulted “the vagueness of this statement’s exposition of ‘the consensus of the ancient church.’”  Gillis Harp found the encouragement “to leapfrog over 1,500 years of church history to recover some exceedingly vague and romantic model of the early Church” to be ludicrous.  Mills’ commentary on the Call is entitled “A Call Too Vague.”  Commentators D. G. Hart and S. M. Hutchens do not use the word “vague” in their commentaries; but, Hart comes close to it when he points out that the Call‘s appeal to tradition, the ancient church, and to historic forms of the faith amounts to a perplexing repudiation of Evangelicalism’s historic suspicion of the forms that define ecclesiastical bodies, such as creeds, liturgy, and ordination.  Hutchens?  See below. 

Worship warriors in the gender wars army 

McClay blows the lid off the Call with this observation: 

As I read the document, I found it curious that the authors repeatedly spoke with such abstractness of the “Triune” or “Trinitarian” character of God. Then it dawned on me why. They were doing so to avoid using the inflammatory word Father—another word that never once appears in this document. Nor do they ever use the masculine personal pronoun for God.

McClay had previously mentioned that the word “authority” never appeared anywhere in the document.  And, with the comment above, he uncovers an amazing bit of editorial skullduggery.  Not only does the entire statement (about 1400 words) never use the word “authority” or the word “father,” God Himself is never once referred to as Father or Son, and no masculine singular pronoun in the entire piece ever has God for an antecedent.   

Is this just accidental?  It looks deliberate to anyone who notices it.   

S. M. Hutchens, who seems to be the one at Touchstone to do the heavy work, when that work involves speaking unambiguously about egalitarians, says this: 

The grammar of this piece is an unmistakable sign that we are dealing not with the story of the God we recognize, but rather an outreach program of someone I prefer to call “Gawd,” the deity of the Egalitarians. Gawd, being in fact a demon, has many noble parts, for it, like other demons, was born a god, and can play its old self quite well. But anyone with an orthodox cell in his noggin would have to be, at this stage of the game, pretty dull to be taken in by its proposal to tell anyone’s story but its own.


This writer can only see the piece as an invitation for Evangelicals to press further with their re–imagination of Christianity along the baleful lines indicated by the proposal’s neutered grammar, a call to deeper error, deeper and more pervasive idolatry—not to join the Church, but infect it. 


Leave a comment

Filed under Egalitarianism, Polemics

Flummery No. 1

–noun, plural -mer-ies.
1. oatmeal or flour boiled with water until thick. 
2. fruit custard or blancmange usually thickened with cornstarch. 
3. any of various dishes made of flour, milk, eggs, sugar, etc. 
4. complete nonsense; foolish humbug. 

flummeryI’ve loved the word “flummery” ever since first encountering it in Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe novels.  Wolfe usually applied the term to expositions of a crime made by Inspector Cramer.  Wolfe’s culinary obsessions almost guarantee (though I do not recall this from my reading of the novels) that Wolfe had actually eaten flummery, at least in the sense of items 2 and 3 above.  Mostly, however, he deployed the term to name nonsense and other foolish humbug.

The term came to mind as I reviewed a report from a young man, newly enrolled in a Christian college somewhere in the upper midwest.  He had studied our Five Aspects of Man curriculum and deemed it both Biblical and illuminating for the world around him.  But, then he found himself in conversation with a Resident Advisor in the dorm he inhabits.  From their conversation about gender-specific roles, he reported this:

My RA, who has been a really oustanding guy who I really respect, has taken some classes on this and read some books and he really questions the whole idea of subjugating men and women into roles.  He said that if men are placed into the leadership role, that by itself devalues women; just saying that they cannot be leaders makes them feel inferior.

Where to begin?

First of all, the Bible does not say that women may not be leaders.  Titus 2, for example, expressly encourages older women to be leaders of younger women with respect to their roles as wives and homemakers.  The church for centuries has acknowledged and affirmed women as leaders.  Leadership is not the issue.  Who is leading whom — that is the issue.

The Bible explicitly places men as leaders of women in two spheres:  marriage and church.  Ephesians 5:22ff is the locus classicus for the former, 1 Timothy 2-3 for the latter.  Other places in the NT add Apostolic weight to these two principles:  men are heads in marriage and in the Church. 

What this means is that women are not to lead men in marriage and in the Church.  But, this is precisely where egalitarians insist that (1) the Bible isn’t really saying what it actually says, or (2) the Bible is wrong. Which egalitarian you consult determines which of these spins you will get. 

Please note, however, that women are not excluded from leadership.  It is expected that mothers will genuinely lead their minor children, including their male children.  And, women may lead other women.  Again, the issue is not whether women may lead, but whom they may lead.

Second, the idea that “roles” subjugate men or women arises from the recent notion that individual persons are “free” in principle to be anything they choose.  Yes, for most people, there are opportunities to improve their health, wealth, influence or their economic, social, and educational conditions.  Along with these opportunities — whether they are great or only minor opportunities — is a corresponding opportunity to see these conditions deteriorate.

But it is a falsehood to suppose that we are a blank slate on which only we may write.  By the time we can begin to contemplate altering ourselves in even trivial ways, others have written extensively on our slates.  This is not an evil thing.  And, much of what is written by others is construed as roles, some of which are gender-specific.  Were it not so, there would be no civilization, no wisdom, no continuity with our past.

Finally, the alleged harm — that someone excluded from leadership shall “feel inferior” — is nothing more than folk psychology elevated to an ecclesiastical standard of behavior.  It is the very nature of leadership that leaders are significantly, sometimes vastly, outnumbered by non-leaders.   Yes, leaders may be far too few in number (e.g. Moses before Jethro offered him advice).  But, they also can be far too many in number (consider in this regard any modern governmental beauracracy, including the denominational structures of most Protestant churches).   A body in which all members were leaders would be leaderless.

Finally, the gender-specific leadership prescribed in the Bible has nothing to do with gifting or talents. Leaders may be taltented; they may have fewer talents than those whom they lead.  But the leadership of fathers, husbands, elders, and bishops — these are responsibilities laid on the shoulders of males, who beyond their sex must qualify for leadership according to objective criteria specified by Apostolic mandate.

The pitiful thing about this young man’s report is that he indicates his RA, and those who have trained the RA to despise the leadership God has laid upon the men in the Church are bent on training their followers to despise the same responsibilities laid upon them by the Lord.   

Leave a comment

Filed under Flummery

Egalitarian Welcome Lie No. 1

welcomelieIn recent correspondence on a couple of blogs and in private correspondence as well, I’ve had occasion to revisit a lie used by feminists (secular and religious) to prosecute their attacks on classical western patriarchy. Since the relevant refutations to this particular lie are close at hand, I post them here, and inaugurate a new classification of posts in this blog: Welcome Lies.

This blog entry is, therefore, an engagement of Welcome Lie No. 1. It’s not No. 1 as a matter of importance, but only in terms of this blog. It’s the first of the welcome lies, welcomed by egalitarians, that I’ll treat.

The term “welcome lie” comes to me from an article by Michael Nolan who wrote: “If the first casualty of war is the unwelcome truth, the first tool of the discontented is the welcome lie.” This is the sentence which begins his 1998 article published in First Things entitled “What Aquinas Never Said About Women.” The second sentence of Nolan’s article goes like this: “Such lies cluster freely around Thomas Aquinas.”

Nolan goes on to refute two of the more common lies, namely that Aquinas claims women are defective males and that he claims that the male human embryo receives a rational soul earlier than does the female. In addition to Nolan’s refutation of this lie (a welcome lie for the religious egalitarian, eager to bash Biblical patriarchy), I offer one of the most incorrigible examples of preference for agenda over truth, namely Patricia Gundry’s online philippic against patriarchy entitled Woman Be Free. If one will surf to the online text of this work, and do a word search on “Aquinas,” he will arrive at the paragraphs where she lodges the welcome lie against Aquinas which Nolan ably exposes in his article at First Things.

There are several curious features of Gundry’s distribution of this lie about Aquinas which I want to catalog here. First of all, it appears Gundry has not even read Aquinas, for her citation of him is not from any translation of the Summa Theologica, but rather from Susan G. Bell’s 1973 book Women: From the Greeks to the French Revolution . If one wishes to consult Aquinas directly, a standard English translation has been on the net for years at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library . This site lists several digital versions of the Summa and the part of the Summa used to excoriate Aquinas is found here.

Second, Gundry’s citation of Aquinas is egregiously out of context. You may verify this for yourself by consulting Nolan’s exposition and also by consulting the English translation of the Summa at CCEL. The words cited by Gundry are found in Summa 1, 92, 1. But if you will read Aquinas’s text of the entire question he’s engaging (only half a dozen or so paragraphs) you will see that the words Gundry quotes are Aquinas’ paraphrase of Aristotle’s view, which Aquinas immediately contradicts and corrects.

Imagine that I write an essay defending capitalism, and I paraphrase Marx on the social injustice of private property. Imagine that after this paraphrase, I go on to contradict Marx and offer a contrary idea about private property, the latter being my own conviction. Imagine, later, that Patricia Gundry lifts my paraphrase of Marx out of the essay, and then offers this as proof that Fr. Bill is a Marxist.

This is exactly what she has done to Aquinas (indeed, it is what all egalitarians do when they accuse Aquinas at this point). Said another way, Aquinas is correcting a mistake in Aristotle, but Gundry (and others like her) take Aquinas’ paraphrase of Aristotle’s mistake and assert it is Aquinas’ own conviction! Is this chutzpah, or what?

Ordinary people would rightly call it slander. It’s possible, I suppose, that Gundry has allowed herself to be led into slander by gullibly believing others who slander Aquinas. That’s the most charitable explanation for her mistake. And, this no doubt explains the popularity of this slander among many egalitarians. “I mean, Gee Whiz! Aquinas, for crying out loud – the Big Cajunah of the Catholic Church. He thought women were defective males! If he can get it so very very wrong, then maybe we’re not crazy at all to insist that there’s been a conspiracy against women for centuries!”

As Nolan said, this is a welcome lie. Nevertheless, I’ve had to dismiss the Gullibility Theory of Gundry’s persistence in spreading this lie, because … About eight years ago, just after Nolan’s article made its appearance in First Things, I happened to be engaged in cyber-discussion and debate with Gundry in a forum devoted to the controversy between patriarchalists and egalitarians in the Church. I had found and read Gundry’s work Woman Be Free, and also Nolan’s concise refutation of the lie about Aquinas which her work contained. I laid all this out before Mrs. Gundry, challenging her to read Aquinas directly (not someone else’s citation of Aquinas), to read Nolan’s defense of him, and then to retract her slander of Aquinas. She never responded directly in that forum, but in one of her own forums (in which I was lurking) she reported my admonition and asked others what they thought of all this. Nothing further came of it. That was about eight years ago. As you’ll see by consulting her digital text of Woman Be Free, she has never retracted her slander.

So, I do not think Gundry is gullible. No, she seems quite content to slander a teacher of the Church because she rejoices, as Nolan says, in a welcome lie.


Filed under Welcome Lies

toff’s Bible and Your Bible

skelbookOriginally published online here we have a wonderful example of how egalitarian interpreters of the Bible mine Holy Writ for meanings never dreamed of in 2,000 years.  It turns out that they are simply taking a page from cultural reconstructionists such as you find at Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage, otherwise known as “the toff’s bible.”  It seems that this venerable guide to blue-blood behavior needed a little freshening up, to make it possible for a lass to have a one-night stand in good taste.  Never mind that the original toff’s Bible never conceived of correct young ladies letting some stranger sow his seed in their fields.  I can just hear those modern blue-noses sniffing in relief that the Days of Queen Victoria are almost completely forgotten.

The editor says, “We’re pulling Debrett’s out of Victorian times and trying to make it relevant to today.”  How many times have you heard egalitarians say the same thing about the Bible’s gendered language for God?    Or how about this:  “The core values of Debrett’s remain — elegance, composure and dignity are all important, whether you are dining with the Queen or cheating on your husband.”  I could swear I’ve read some egal somewhere saying “The core values of the Bible remain –comprehensive equality of persons, diversity of genders in all offices of the church, and everyone submitting to everyone else, no matter whether you are ruling the church or deconstructing the Apostle Paul.” But, maybe I’m just seeing similarities where there are none.  Whaddaya think?

Etiquette guide offers sleaze tips for posh girls

By Kate Kelland  LONDON (Reuters) – For hundreds of years, Debrett’s has guided Britain’s aristocracy through the niceties of meeting royalty, going to the races or eating soup in the correct way.
Now the publishers of the bible of blue-blooded behavior are straying into previously unmentionable areas of the life of a modern girl — with a new book offering guidance on The first edition of Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage — known in Britain as the “toff’s bible” was published in 1769, and its tome on manners, Debrett’s Correct Form, has guided high society for decades. But according to its editor, Jo Aitchison, the new book “Etiquette for Girls” is a sign that the traditional arbiters of civility are catching up with the times. 

“It’s a nod to the modern day,” she told Reuters. “We’re pulling Debrett’s out of Victorian times and trying to make it relevant to today.”

The book’s advice ranges from how to conduct a sleaze-free office fling or a disease-free one night stand, to how to smoke at social occasions and what to do when you meet a celebrity.

“Avoid dark-alley gropery and unladylike fumbling in the back of a cab,” the guide says on the subject of one night stands. “Discuss the necessaries to avoid planting any love children or disease, and you’re away.” On smoking it decrees: “Always use a proper ashtray — never a wine bottle, flower pot or used plate — and avoid allowing smoke to billow out of the nostrils. It is also inelegant to leave the cigarette unsupported in the mouth…”

But Aitchison insists the book is not all about sex, lies and partying. The core values of Debrett’s remain — elegance, composure and dignity are all important, whether you are dining with the Queen or cheating on your husband.

“We are trying to give girls confidence to behave in the correct way,” she told Reuters. “It’s a bit like a survival guide for modern life, so we have had to include certain subject matters that are new for Debrett’s.”

The world of celebrity is “peopled by psycho fans and fame hags,” the book says, and is best treated with caution. As well as advice on affairs, Aitchison points out that the book also includes suggestions on less risque subjects: How to behave properly on the way to work — “don’t sit on the bus and bellow down your mobile phone” — and what to take to a music festival — “earplugs and a pillow.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism, Polemics

Taking off the gloves

red glovesCrossway Books has just released a new book by Wayne Grudem, entitled Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? After looking it over quickly (I’m going to read parts of it very closely and offer commentary/analysis in later posts), I commend it to you for your use in challenging the egalitarians within your churches, associations, and denominations.

In this post, I’ll simply characterize the book broadly and provide the text of the table of contents, so you can see how the book will be helpful.

The Crossway Public relations person who contacted me via email to let me know about this book wrote put this spin on it: “Wayne Grudem names names!” And, indeed, he does. This is, perhaps, one of the more helpful features of the book; for, as he discusses the various ways that ostensibly evangelical scholars and leaders abandon evangelicalism’s fundamental allegiance to the Bible, he gives a specific example of what he’s talking about, naming names as he goes along. The result: you do not have to say, in vague terms, “egals believe this or that.” Instead, you can cite the leaders whom egalitarians happily acknowledge as leaders and in the same breath you can challenge the departures from evangelical faith which these egalitarian leaders make.

Below, is my transcription of Parts II, III, and IV from the Table of Contents. In brackets, I have included what is not included in the TOC, the names of the particular egalitarians whom Grudem critiques under each chapter title.

PART II: Evangelical Feminist Views that Undermine or Deny the Authority of Scripture

Ch. 3: Saying Genesis is Wrong. Some evangelical feminists deny the authority or truthfulness of Genesis 1-3. [Rebecca Groothius]

Ch. 4: Saying that Paul Was Wrong. Some evangelical feminists say that Paul was wrong. [Nancy Hardesty; Letha Scanzoni; Paul Jewett; Clarence Boomsa; David Thompson]

Ch. 5: Saying that Some Verses Found in Every Manuscript Are Not Part of the Bible. Some evangelical feminists say that some verses that are in every ancient manuscript of 1 Corinthians are not really part of the Bible. [Fee]

Ch. 6: “Later Developments” Trump Scripture. Some evangelical feminists say our ultimate authority is found not in what is written in Scripture but in developments that came after the Bible. [R. T. France; David Thompson; J. Howard Marshall; Krister Stendahl; Peter Davids]

Ch. 7: “Redemptive Movement” Trumps Scripture. Some evangelical feminists adopt William Webb’s “redemptive movement” approach and cast all the ethical commands of the New Testament into doubt. [William Webb]

Ch. 8: Is It Just A Matter of Choosing Our Favorite Verses? Some evangelical feminists claim that our position on gender roles just depends on which Bible passages we choose to prioritize.[R. T. France; Stanley Grenz; Sarah Sumner]

Ch. 9: Can We Just Ignore the “Disputed” Passages? Some evangelical feminists silence the most relevant Bible passages on men and women by saying they are “disputed.” [Cindy Jacobs; Sarah Sumner; Rich Nathan]

Ch. 10: Does A Pastor’s Authority Trump Scripture? Some evangelical feminists say that women can teach if they are “under the authority” of the pastors or elders. [no specific pastor is named in this chapter]

Ch. 11: Teaching in the Parachurch? Some evangelical feminists evade New Testament commands by saying “We are not a church.” [no specific parachurch organizations are named here, but they are in chapter 35]

Ch. 12: Tradition Trumps Scripture. Some evangelical feminists put church tradition above the Bible. [Kevin Giles]

Ch. 13: Experience Trumps Scripture. Some evangelical feminists put experience above the Bible. [Sarah Sumner; Cindy Jacobs; obliquely Ann Graham Lotz and Beth Moore; Judy Brown]

Ch. 14: “Calling” Trumps Scripture. Some evangelical feminists put a subjective sense of “calling” above the Bible. [Millicent Hunter; Sarah Sumner]

Ch. 15: Prophecies” Trump Scripture. Some evangelical feminists put contemporary prophecies above the Bible. [Cindy Jacobs]

Ch. 16: Circumstances Trump Scripture. Some evangelical feminists put unique circumstances above the Bible. [John Arnott; Cindy Jacobs]

Ch. 17: Calling A Historical Passage A Joke. One evangelical feminist nullifies a Bible passage on Sarah obeying Abraham by saying that it was intended as humor. [Gilbert Bilzikian]

Ch. 18: The Result of Rejecting the Authority of the Bible in These Ways.

PART III: Evangelical Feminist Views Based on Untruthful or Unsubstantiated Claims

Ch. 19: Disruptive Women In Corinth? Some evangelical feminists claim that Paul told the women in Corinth to “keep silent” because they were disrupting the church services. [Craig Keener; Stanley Grenz]

Ch. 20: Women Homeowners as Elders? Some evangelical feminists claim that women homeowners were overseers (or elders) in early churches. [Linda Belleville]

Ch. 21: Women Deacons With Authority? Some evangelical feminists claim that women deacons had governing authority in early church history. [Linda Belleville]

Ch. 22: Uneducated Women in Ephesus? Some evangelical feminists claim that Paul told the women in Ephesus not to teach or exercise authority over men because they were uneducated and therefore unqualified to do so. [Gilbert Bilzikian; Craig Keener; Cindy Jacobs]

Ch. 23: Women Teaching False Doctrine in Ephesus? Some evangelical feminists claim that Paul told the women in Ephesus not to teach or exercise authority over men because they were teaching false doctrine. [Richard & Catherine Kroeger; Craig Keener; Gordon Fee; J. Lee Grady; Don Williams; ]

Ch. 24: Women Teaching a Gnostic Heresy in Ephesus? Some evangelical feminists claim that Paul told the women in Ephesus not to teach or exercise authority over men because they were teaching a Gnostic heresy about Eve being created before Adam. [Richard & Catherine Kroeger]

Ch. 25: Does “Head” Mean “Source?” Some evangelical feminists claim that the Greek word kephale (“head”) often meant “source” but did not mean “authority.” [no specific egalitarian authority is named in this chapter]

Ch. 26: Strange Meanings for “Authority” – Are They Right? Some evangelical feminists claim that the Greek word authenteo (“exercise authority”) could mean “murder,” or “commit violence,” or “proclaim oneself author of a man,” or could even have a vulgar sexual meaning. [David Scholer; Craig Keener; Rebecca Groothius; Leland Wilshire; J. Lee Grady; Richard & Catherine Kroeger]

Ch. 27: Is The Son Not Subordinate To the Father in the Trinity? Some evangelical feminists claim that the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son is contrary to historic orthodox Christian doctrine. [Gilbert Bilzikian]

Ch. 28: Women Bishops in the Early Church? One evangelical feminist claims that a catacomb painting shows an early woman bishop in Rome. [Catherine Kroeger; Cindy Jacobs

Ch. 29: These Ten Untruthful or Unsubstantiated Claims Also Undermine the Authority of Scripture.

PART IV: Where Is Evangelical Feminism Taking Us?

Ch. 30: The Next Step: Denial of Anything Uniquely Masculine

Ch. 31: Another Troubling Step: God Our Mother [Ruth Tucker; Paul Smith; Catherin Kroeger; Mimi Haddad; Cooperative Baptist Fellowship]

Ch. 32: The Final Step: Approval of Homosexuality [Virginia Mollenkott; Letha Scanzoni; Roy Clements; interestingly, he does NOT mention the Campolos. Also surveyed are the trends in the mainline denominations, along with such ostensibly evangelical institutions such as Calvin College, the Christian Reformed Church, Fuller Seminary, InterVarsity Press]

Ch. 33: Some Complementarians Help Evangelical Feminists by Being Harsh, Mean, or Abusive.

Ch. 34: Some Complementarians Help Evangelical Feminists by Being Cowardly or Silent.

Ch. 35: Places where Evangelical Feminism Already Has Much Influence. [names every flagship evangelical institution you could imagine, excepting Dallas Seminary, and I know many reasons it should have been included.]

Ch. 36: What is Ultimately at Stake: The Bible.

The book will serve as a wakeup call for those who are not awake (though, one must wonder if they’d wake up enough to read Grudem’s case).
Overall, I give the book an “A” for effort, and a “B+” for executing its purpose. It is, unfortunately, flawed in key and fundamental ways that will likely be exposed with vigor by egalitarians themselves, though a couple of criticisms are only valid when lodged by other complementarians. I’ll have a thing or two to say in that regard in later posts.


Filed under Complementarianism, Polemics