|
 Wayne Grudem is accumulating an impressive collection of credentials as an influential theologian within conservative evangelicalism. Grudem’s Systematic Theology is as close to a standard evangelical theology as you can find today. His writing on Biblical prophecy is standard reading for anyone interested in issues debated among charismatic and cessationist evangelicals. His work on gender is gaining authoritative status and quickly earning him the mantle of “most widely cited” theologian among conservative evangelicals.
Grudem’s new book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism, is a definitive book for complimentarians looking for an organized, well-written collection of arguments against the growing acceptance of egalitarianism among evangelicals. The book’s 263 pages are made up of short chapters, clearly stated arguments and responses, representative quotes, extensive footnote documentation, and a willingness to get to the point without embarrassment. The reader is never in doubt about where Grudem is going or what he believes is at stake. Grudem’s book is the first easily accessible comprehensive answer to the full range of pro-egalitarian arguments found throughout evangelicalism. Grudem knows his intellectual opponents, and believes, in fact, that he knows where they are going better than they do. Central to Grudem’s book is the argument that the theological and Biblical reasoning used to under gird egalitarianism is the same argumentation used to support what he calls “liberal” theological conclusions regarding women’s ordination, homosexuality and a general rejection of the plain and obvious reading of the Biblical message. Grudem’s thesis is refreshingly easy to grasp, and he doesn’t hesitate to name names. (In fact, one wonders at times, especially when naming book endorsers, if Grudem wants to primarily engage arguments or personalities, schools and publishing houses.) From well known schools to denominations to books and scholars, Grudem lays out how, from his point of view, liberal-leaning egalitarianism has penetrated into evangelicalism, bringing with it a rejection of the plain teaching of the Bible on women’s roles in the family and women’s ordination to pastoral ministry. Unlike books that see one grand error, conspiracy or historical shift as the culprit in theology, Grudem sees a diverse variety of flawed interpretations, unsupportable assertions and politically/culturally influenced moves affecting evangelicals who have adopted egalitarianism. He is deeply concerned that the plain and undeniable sense of Biblical passages have been rejected, that inerrancy is at stake and that the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the freedom of eglitarianism, but the train wreck of liberalism. Each chapter is a tight, documented argument leading to the conclusion that each argument is a prelude to liberalism. By liberalism, Grudem, means the ordination of women and various levels of approving homosex behavior in the church. In this regard, Grudem is engaging in a “slippery slope” argument that is highly controlled by what has happened to liberals in the past. This “slippery slope,” however, is not a scare tactic. The slide is obvious there, and much of previous evangelicalism disappeared down it. One line of response to Grudem, however, will need to be how accurately he portrays and autopsies liberalism in the mainline denominations. My impression is that what Grudem identifies as a collapse of Biblical authority in the mainlines is accurate up to a point, but that it’s worst developments- Gene Robinson and homnosex marriage- owe more to the political takeovers of these denominations than to a loss of confidence in the Bible. Grudem seems to assume that liberal Biblical scholars are controlled by their presuppositions on these texts, and he may be right. Many of those scholars could write similar books on how conservatives seem similarly blind to texts dealing with economics, justice, community and discipleship But Grudem is exactly right to point out that the mainline liberals engage in a kind of Biblical interpretation that is often controlled not by the text, but by the goals and presupposed agendas of the groups using the Bible. I would suggest that such a warning could be heeded by all concerned, and not just on gender issues. Grudem acknowledges at several places that there are egalitarian complimentarians who do not follow the pied piper into the woods of approving of homosex behavior. He also acknowledges that other issues of interpretation, such as head coverings and slavery, have a place at the same table of discussion. Central to Grudem’s thesis is the assumption that male headship is a transcultural issue, taught clearly in Genesis 1-3, is not a result of sin and ties together New Testament and Old Testament texts on the subject without strain or contradiction. On page 40, he lists the aspects of Genesis 1-2 that he believes endorse male headship. The man is alone in the garden.
The man is told to work and keep the garden.
God’s command to the man to eat and not eat.
God saying it is not good for man to be alone.
God bringing the beasts to the man to name.
The man naming the creatures.
There not being a fit helper for man.
God causing a deep sleep to come upon the man and creating woman from a rib. I’ve been teaching Bible survey for more than a decade with students in grades 10-12. We do a close reading of Genesis 1-3- taking more than a week- because I am confident that the main emphases of the texts are available to the average reader without scholarly subtlety. Grudem’s assessment that the texts above teach that female subjection was part of the created order is, frankly, amazing to me. It isn’t that one cannot, from a particular standpoint, see these texts as suggesting that position. It is that the plainest, simplest reading of these texts seem to not be about that question at all and I cannot believe that, left alone, most readers would come to such a conclusion. The primary text- the controlling text- is not some description of Adam in the garden, but the clear statement that both male and female are made in God’s image according to Genesis 1:26-27. Here biology is clearly and unequivocally subjected to the truth of being made- mutually- in God’s image. When this is combined with the New Covenant statements of our fullness in Christ, there is a strong argument that the primary truths should be those most stressed by the text. I do not believe Grudem would deny this, and I am not saying he fails to appreciate it. I am saying that if the case for female subjection is made, it’s made in plainest form in chapter 3, in the curse, not in creation. I am sure that most readers are aware that many egalitarians and those of us leaning that direction are not convinced that those details of the creation story listed above were intended to teach an original subjection of women to men. That subjection is explicitly spelled out in Genesis 3:16, a text Grudem only cites once. Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The statement that man will rule over woman seems an oddly out of place if eight previous citations in Genesis were meant to bring the reader to the conclusion that subjection was the original intent, and not the result of the fall. Even Paul’s statements in I Corinthians regarding the priority of Adam in creation doesn’t build the case the same way complimentarians read the details of Genesis. Grudem also spends two chapters dealing with the various versions of the “trajectory” theories that state that the direction of New Covenant teaching may not be completed in the New Testament. Grudem does an outstanding job faulting these theories for their complexities, but he does a less in dealing with the nagging questions such theories leave any serious reader of the New Testament: Should women teach men at all, in any capacity, in or out of the church? Should women wear head coverings? Is slavery still acceptable today? I am impressed with Grudem’s confidence that the trajectory methodology is not needed because of the consistency and plainness of scripture. I await his book resolving the question of baptism and the sacraments, divisions in Christian doctrine that are also build on plain texts interpreted in similar ways, with similar results. Many of us who lean toward some version of egalitarianism share Grudem’s distaste for the casting aside of scriptural authority, but we are also engaged in a discussion of the nature of that authority, where it resides and how it works. Homosex is clearly not a trajectory issue, but a social and political one. Genesis is specific on created nature and the nature of marriage. The discussion on the role of women in the church, it seems to me, is of a different kind. We are not debating what is the role of homosex in the church, but there are no conservative evangelicals who give women no role in the church at all. The question is, even for complimentarians, what does that role look like? Grudem would allow women to prophesy, I’m sure. How many of those reading this book would agree? Grudem acknowledges that passages in I Corinthians speak about women praying and prophesying, but also of those same women being silent and not teaching or having authority. Evangelicals who endorse Grudem’s views are a long way from agreeing on what they look like in practice. Is Beth Moore teaching men? Does she have pastoral authority when she preaches from the Bible? At what age must men teach men? (Pity the small group minister who must segregate all small groups by gender and find same sex leaders for those middle schoolers.) What can women do and say in church? If we agree they cannot be elders, can they create blogs and denounce elders? Can they write books saying what teaching elders say? How do the principles Grudem articulates work out in the interaction between the Christian and the secular world? Can Condi Rice be President but not an elder of her church? It doesn’t trouble me at all if that is the case, but I want conservative evangelicals to talk about these issues. I want to know how to tell my daughter that she is saved by staying home and having children. Grudem’s work is absolutely must reading for all sides. It’s a book I will read and reread. I’ll recommend it and but it on my resource shelf. His warnings and analysis deserve to be heard. (Those who don’t want Gordon Fee or other respected scholars to be hauled out to the woodshed need to avoid this book. Grudem is unsparing.) It’s easily one of the most appealing, convincing and persuasive cases from the inerrantist side of this debate. Many of us look at scripture’s authority in a way differently than Grudem does. Grudem well represents the way that inerrantists evaluate arguments that deal with the text differently than they do. Those of us who believe that Jesus Christ is the way we hear and understand he message of the Bible must still answer the challenges raised by the texts themselves. For us, the question is how does Jesus Christ illuminate all of scripture? Is a post-evangelical way of reading scripture automatically the “liberal” slippery slope? Or is there, in a Christ illuminated reading of the texts themselves, resources for understanding questions that must, eventually, move beyond biology to the discussion of humanity in Christ. Grudem’s warning to those of us who believe that cultural context is critical in the ongoing issue of gender and authority is on-target. There are wrong ways of reasoning, fallacious arguments and dishonest agendas lurking everywhere. If there is, in the fullness of God’s grace that comes to each person in Christ, the freedom to choose roles of unrestricted ministry in the church, then such freedom must come from the honest interpretation of texts in the light of the Final Word himself. Grudem’s book is a true gift to all evangelicals in that regard. I don’t want to be or become the kind of liberal Grudem warns about. I don’t believe all those who are egalitarians in some measure are in danger of doing so. But the danger is real, the texts are there, and the discussion needs to continue. This is a benchmark work in that discussion. I have Grudem’s thesis is wrong, but that will be up to those of us who insist we believe in Biblical authority to demonstrate. A copy of this book was furnished to the reviewer by the publisher.
Original content by: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/review-evangelical-feminism-a-new-path-to-liberalism-by-wayne-grudem.
|
Articles, Media, and More 
Scott Bartchy is a radical. He believes in a subversive system that embraces those on the fringes of our society and seeks to establish a new way of life that goes against the status quo.