Tag Archives: complementarian

Book Review: 50 Crucial Questions: An Overview of Concerns about Manhood and Womanhood, by John Piper and Wayne Grudem

50 Crucial QuestionsJohn Piper and Wayne Grudem are fully convinced that reading the creation order as anything other than man being created with authority over woman will result in increasing homosexuality. Seriously. They are so convinced, that they have copied 50 Crucial Questions: An Overview of Central Concerns about Manhood and Womanhood from their previously published book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism because they think people won’t take the time to read the latter in its entirety but would read one of its chapters republished. I’ll just go ahead and say that if one is remotely interested in reading 50…, he or she should just get Recovering… There is nothing that helpful in brevity that, when encountering questions that cannot be sufficiently answered, simply appeals to the authors’ view of the creation order and/or refer the reader to certain chapters in another book. Bottom line: skip this book.

However, if you’re still interested, you may read all fifty questions by looking inside the book within its Amazon.com entry. Some of the answers include the following (my summary and paraphrase):

  • The authors believe that “helper” (Gen 2:18) must mean either someone stronger aiding someone weaker or someone aiding a loving leader. Really? What about a helper being someone who simply helps without being stronger, weaker, submissive, or authoritative? This is an extremely weak argument for the authors’ view of the creation order (Eve being created as a “helper for a loving leader”).
  • The authors agree that there are ambiguities that are difficult, but they do come down very hard on the ambiguities they believe further their view of the creation order.
  • The authors explicitly state that they believe “the issues of infant versus believer’s baptism, of premillenialism, and of Presbyterian, congregational, or episcopal polity are less threatening to the health and mission of the church than questions of gender roles” (82).
  • The authors believe that female leadership occurred in the Old Testament only in service to male leadership or when that leadership was failing. So, does that mean gender roles aren’t as important as they claim? Can women leaders rise up when men are failing? They imply this has been, is, and will be the case in mission work, but aren’t sure what to do about that because it is furthering the spreading of the gospel.

What I find rather telling about books by traditional, hierarchical complemetarianists is that they never address the change from the creation order in Eve’s curse in the fall that “her desire shall be for [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]” (Gen 3:16, NRSV), nor how their view of the creation order plays out in their eschatological view of the new heavens and new earth. This doesn’t mean that answers to these questions from a complemetarian perspective do not exist; it’s that I’ve never heard one.

 

*I received a complimentary digital copy of the reviewed book from Crossway through the Blog Review Program in exchange for this honest review.

Book Review: Women in the Church (Third Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, editors Andreas J. Köstenberger & Thomas R. Schreiner

Women in the ChurchCrossay recently published the third edition (1995, 2005, 2016) of Women in the Church: An Interpretation & Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15 by editors Andreas J. Köstenberger & Thomas R. Schreiner. This is not a collection of articles from differing positions; to the contrary, it intentionally and thoroughly espouses a complementarian position by all contributors. This volume focuses more on attempts to thwart the ever-increasing egalitarian position rather than provide sufficient and convincing arguments for its own. (I’ve read elsewhere that the second edition was better at arguing for rather than against, but I have not read that edition) I believe the volume as a whole “fails to convince,” as is often stated about opposing positions, often using probably, likely, and most likely in reference to its own arguments when denouncing other positions that do the same. An inherent problem in these varying hermeneutics is a lack of verifiable absolutes; the complementarian position here goes with “majority rules” and ignores exceptions when trying to understand the Greek texts, using history only when suitable for its needs while chastising opposing positions for doing the same.

There is much focus on single words & phrases in 1 Timothy 2:9–15 without properly addressing the whole of Scripture and its intended trajectory. Appealing to a “plain sense reading” of verse 13, it is assumed that there is an intended creation order of male authority and female submission (are we also to assume this order in the new heavens and new earth?), and therefore no reason to address the whole of Scripture. The final chapter is a roundtable Q&A in which the editors ask people for their thoughts on several issues, but only includes complementarians already in agreement on virtually anything of importance, meaning the entire “discussion” is unhelpful and pointless. Everyone skirts around what women should or should not wear, ignoring a “plain sense reading” of verse 9, while assuming any good Christian using rigorous biblical exegesis will agree with the “plain sense reading” of verse 13.

 

There are two points made in the text (paraphrased and summarized below) that really need more attention if they are to be at all convincing:

1) Ephesus was not unlike any other Greco-Roman city, and therefore Paul’s words (their “plain sense meaning”) must be for all people at all times. There is much effort made to demonstrate the lack of uniqueness in the culture of Ephesus, but it wasn’t enough to demonstrate how Paul’s text can under no circumstances be culturally based.

2) Paul did not use the exact words and phrasing in this passage as he did in another passage that referenced husbands and wives, so the Greek text here must mean men and women even if used to refer to husbands and wives elsewhere. This is almost a side note in the text that is quickly brushed to the side. Again, there needs to be much more effort and evidence for this argument to convince.

(I received a digital copy of the book without page numbers, so forgive the lack of specific locations for references above.)

 

All in all, this volume is the most thorough of any complementarian arguments I’ve read in a single source, but it fails to convince on a number of levels in the same manner spoken of other positions. One section fervently appeals to the reader by pulling in references to a number of female PhDs that agree with the authors all at once, as if to say, “See! Smart women agree with us!” It was a low point in the text. This may be useful to students and scholars as a resource of the traditional complementarian position if they need one in their library.

 

For those interested, I read and addressed the text from a position of neither traditional complementarianism nor pure egalitarianism. I find fault with both extremes on some level, and reviewed this book as one expecting a thoroughly convincing exegetical argument, which I did not find.

 

*I received a complimentary digital copy of the reviewed book from Crossway through the Blog Review Program in exchange for this honest review.