Category Archives: Polemics

Wiener Wackiness

One of Vienna’s new “gender-neutral” signsGender light has finally dawned for the gender-oppressed in Vienna, Austria.   According to an AFP story at Brietbart.com the city of Vienna has finally launched an initiative to raise awareness about  gender equality.  In the process, thousands of oppressed and marginalized women  will now be able to cross the streets and use exits in safety and confidence.  Co-incidentally, hundreds of  thousands of males will now be able to take seats on subways, trams, and buses  which were formerly designated for elderly, pregnant, or child-toting women. 

Vienna’s “Gender Mainstreaming Project” is supposed “to give both genders the same exposure and ensure an equal distribution of chances, opportunities, and duties by changing the gender of figures pictured on familiar signs,” a spokesperson for the Wiener Rathaus (Vienna City Hall)  stated.  “Because it clashes with fixed visual habits, the campaign compels people to think, look, and act different,” said Sonja Wehsely, city councilor in charge of women’s affairs. Under the new guidelines now being implemented across the city, signs that formerly used male characters will have their female equivalent, while the opposite will also be true. 

Marvelous improvement in quality of life for the women of Vienna is just around the corner.  Uncounted hundreds of thousands of females have been stranded on street corners, discouraged from crossing at safe moments, because the sign that signaled them to do so was an ideograph of a man.  Now many thousands of female lives will now be saved, as women no longer get run over by trams, busses, and garbage trucks in Vienna’s streets.  Gutters that used to run red with female blood can now be cleaned.  The city’s landfills will no longer be gorged with the crushed and broken bodies of female pedestrians who gauged incorrectly when best to cross the street.

The public decency department of the Wiener* Polizei (Viennese Police Department) will add several thousand new staff, to manage the expected rise in disorderly conduct events in the use of public restrooms.  Both sexes are expected to react testily to the presence of the opposite sex in public toilets formerly marked for one sex or the other. 

“Yes, it will be dicey for a while,” said Alosius Schlagobersfürgehirne, Direktor des Wiener WC und Pissoir** Amt (Viennese Water Closet and Public Pisser Authority).  “But, these times of civic turmoil advance us toward the day when all can relive themselves in the company of anyone without a care.  Surely that goal is worth the effort!” he exclaimed.

The reactions from Vienna’s men was mixed.  “Well, it’s certainly going to be an improvement to have women crossing the streets with us,” said one middle-aged Wiener.*  “It will improve the appearance of the crowds in the middle of the streets to see female figures there who are not dashing for their lives or being crushed by streetcars because of their pedestrian indecisiveness.” Other men hailed the new availability of seats on public transportation formerly reserved for pregnant and elderly women. 

Some members of Vienna’s gay community were less sanguine.  “Undoubtedly, the presence of women in the middle of the streets and in the pissoirs is going to change the social dynamics,” said a local tourist guide who specializes in GLBT clientele. “Many GLBT citizens will have to learn a whole new protocol for social interaction in those places,” he explained.

On the other hand, Dominetta Donnerblixenmachen, Dominatrix of the City of Vienna’s GLBT Affairs Office, sees the new gender mainstream project as merely the first step toward mainstreaming all the genders, not just the merely biological ones. 

“The new signage is an advance, of course,” she said.  “But, there is nothing in the current ideographs to signal anything beyond body parts.”  Donnerblixenmachen has already set up a task force to design ideographs which represent gay, lesbian, transsexual, and bisexual persons.  “When we have a fair consensus in our communities, we’ll present them to the Viennese City Council for inclusion in all the usual places — public transportation and toilets, street crossings, and boarding stations for trains.” 

The more “organic” gender-inclusive signage for Vienna’s public squareDonnerblixenmachen displayed the current front runner for more gender-inclusive signage, an ideograph with a female form sporting a moustache, and a male ideograph with breasts and voluptuous lips.  “It’s a more organic approach to communication,” Donnerblixenmachen explained.  “This design was put forth by the La Cage Aux Folles Coalition for Sexual Sanity.  Presently it has the support of about 57 percent of the GLBT community we have surveyed.”

A more spiritual provocation for thinking about genderOn the other hand, Donnerblixenmachen explained, “others are campaigning for a less organic approach.”  She displayed an alternate signage, similar to the one Vienna is already deploying, except that an abstract symbol for “male” is imposed on a female ideograph, and vice versa.  “If the Rathaus imagines that the current signage will get people to thinking, they will think all the harder with this more purely spiritual signage.”

One segment of Vienna’s population will be exempt from gender mainstreaming.  AFP reports that a roadworks sign picturing a woman in a skirt digging into a pile of dirt and used on a campaign poster for the gender mainstream project will not see the light of day because of “traffic regulations.”  Project activists are busy researching just what this means, with a view to ensuring that all genders have equal access to the ditch-digging sectors of the economy.

PETA’s purely symbolic signage that omits references to human beingsMeanwhile, the local chapter of PETA continues to wage an unremitting campaign against “the anthropocentric chauvinism” of the gender mainstreaming project.  “Why have symbols of humans at all?  Even if the city uses signs for dozens of genders that are conceivable, they’re still human!” says Fifi Hundeundkatzeundvögelundsoweiter. “Species justice requires that we use only abstract symbols for all the genders.”  The local chapter of PETA has taken up a campaign to replace all the ideographs in the city that presently depict humans with signs that suggest all genders in purely symbolic form.  

Will Vienna’s cutting edge gender mainstreaming project spread beyong the Wienerwald?  History suggests it may.  A century ago, a psychiatrist named Sigmund Freud attempted to catalog the features of Vienna’s pscho-sexual aberrations.  In an understandable ego-centric error, he supposed he was observing a general pattern of human psychology, rather than the idiosyncracies of a post-empire mass neurosis confined mostly to Vienna within the Guertel.  But, in a surprise still affecting the West, Freud’s error became established as the premier psychological model of Western Europe and the  Americas. Today entire university schools of psychiatry suppose all humanity is substantially identical to the navel-gazing neurotics of fin de siecle Vienna.

With a precedent like that, can gender mainstreaming for the rest of the West be far behind?


*The German name of Vienna is “Wien,” pronounced “veen,” as German W’s have the same consonantal sound as the American or British letter “v.”  Thus, in German, “Wiener” [pronounced “veener”] is not a hot dog, but a male resident of Wien (i.e. Vienna).  A female resident of  Vienna is a Wienerin. 

**Pissoir is a mild French vulgarism used throughout Europe to label public latrines for men, though it would appear they may now be used by women in Vienna.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Polemics

Christians for Biblical Anarchy

Christians for Biblical AnarchyMy friend Michael over at the Complementarian Christian Coalition Forum has delivered himself of a cogent bit of polemic against religious feminism (aka evangelical egalitarians).  Applying their usual arguments against patriarchy (including the patriarchy inherent in the Biblical worldview) to the governmental institution of the police, he lays out how and why we should form a new organization:  Christians for Biblical Anarchy.

 A sample to whet your appetite:

You know, I was thinking. Policemen do a lot of terrible things. Some
let their power and authority go to their heads. They can intimidate
people and abuse them. And they can even legally carry around the
tools to do this! We all know how they will gang up on and beat up
people they pull over. They even do it in front of their own
dashboard video cameras, as we’ve all seen. How arrogant and out of
control can you get? (I saw a new one yesterday.)  

Read it all here

I’d propose an organizational meeting for the Christians for Biblical Anarchy, but  … hmmm.  That’s kind of counter-intuitive, no?  Kind of like the whole idea of Biblical equality. 

3 Comments

Filed under Egalitarianism, Feminism, Polemics

The Camel’s Nose

Standard Camel’s NoseEveryone knows the story of the Arab and his camel, how he allowed the camel on a cold night to put his nose into the tent in order to keep warm.  By morning, the tent was full of camel, and the Arab was outside in the cold.

This is a parable for the development of many Christian organizations.  For reasons too large for this blog to explore, the Christian version of this parable always casts the orthodox in the role of the Arab, the heterodox and heretics in the role of camels.  The parable is unfolding in our day with those who are reappraising classical, orthodox, and Biblical notions of sex, these playing the roles of camels to Arabs who are the custodians of the tents (denominations, mission boards, and seminaries). 

A modern camel’s nose to the PCA tentCase in point: Carolyn Custis James and her increasing occupation of the tents named “evangelical Christianity” generally and the “Presbyterian Church in America” specifically.  In the latter case, a few lonesome voices  have repeatedly called for PCA institutions to repent of providing her venues to spread her egalitarian agenda in an ostensibly traditionalist denomination.  So far, no cigar.  Or, rather, it’s been more and more of the James’ nose in the PCA tent. 

It would sound ludicrous to speculate on how long it will take the PCA to shed its complentarian policies.  A generation?  Less?  Things move fairly fast these days.  There are those exceptional cases of the Missouri Synod Lutherans and the Southern Baptists who pulled back from the brink of worldliness.  But, in the past century of the evolution of Christianity in America, they are the glaring exceptions, not the rule.

At any rate, for those who like to watch these things develop, keep your eye on the PCA as the conservatives within it continue down a trail trodden by the mainline denominations from which the PCA separated only a generation ago.  And, keep your ear tuned to those intrepid Bayly Brothers, whose voices crying in the Presbyterian wilderness may one day finally be heeded.  Or not.

Leave a comment

Filed under Egalitarianism, Polemics

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?

Nope.

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.
 

5 Comments

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. 

Indeed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Egalitarianism, Polemics

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.
 

3 Comments

Filed under Complementarianism, Polemics