Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?
Wayne Grudem has written a timely book to address a timeless issue. Evangelical Feminism was written to address the specific issue of the contemporary rise of the Egalitarian practices within the evangelical church. However, in broad terms, Grudem is dealing with the same old issue, challenges to the authority of God.
Grudem describes this book as “an expression of deep concern about a widespread undermining of the authority of Scripture in the arguments that are frequently used to support feminism. It is also a way of posing a question: can a movement that espouses this many ways of undermining the authority of Scripture possible be right?” The book’s contention is that evangelical feminism sets those who affirm it on a dangerous path leading ultimately to liberalism.
Grudem helpfully defines terms for us in understanding exactly who he is aiming at in the book. With reference to evangelical feminism Grudem says that he is referring to “a movement that claims there are no unique leadership roles for men in marriage or in the church.” (also called egalitarianism). With reference to theological liberalism Grudem says he is referring to “a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives.”
The book is extremely helpful in helping you become familiar with the common arguments which are employed promoting the acceptance of women functioning as teachers, elders, and pastors in the local church. Most are familiar with the Apostle Paul’s inspired words in Second Timothy when he wrote: I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (2 Tim. 2.12). Many of the arguments attempt to change the natural meaning of this passage and others like it.
Here are some examples:
“Paul was Wrong”
“Later Developments trump Scripture”
“We should ignore the disputed passages”
“A pastor’s authority trumps Scripture”
“Tradition trumps Scripture”
“Experience trumps Scripture”
“Calling trumps Scripture”
In each case Grudem presents the argument as advanced by evangelical feminists and then answers it from Scripture, history, reason, and or logic. Each chapter closes with a phrase similar to, “Therefore, the argument that Paul was wrong is another step on the path towards liberalism.”
A helpful section of this book is the frightening consideration of where evangelical feminism is taking us (part four). The chapters include: “The Next Step: Denial of Anything Uniquely Masculine”, “Another Troubling Step: God our Mother”, “The Final Step: Approval of Homosexuality”.
This is truly frightening. If one can make the natural sense of a passage mean something completely opposite (cf. 1 Tim. 2.12) then they can make any passage mean anything they want it to. Therefore, Wayne Grudem serves us well in exposing us to the popular and painfully troubling trend of evangelical feminism and also equipping us to refute its errors and promote that which is true and biblical.
Wayne Grudem has written extensively on this topic. Some of his other books include, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism which he co-authored with John Piper. He has written Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions and then two collections of essays he edited, Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood and Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood.
Possibly Related posts:
- Q & A Friday :: Why do you write negative posts on evangelical leaders?
- Top Books from 2007
- Pierced for Our Transgressions
- The Battle Belongs to the Lord
- Did God Write the Bible?
36 Responses to “Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?”
Leave a Reply
About
Subscribe to Updates
Twitter Updates
- @JustinBuzzard Hands down Pillar's Edwards & then Lane. Ferguson's lil book is good as are Keller's & MacArthur's sermons.
- With him there is plentiful redemption (Ps.130.7). This is good for one who's sin is plentiful!
- We are officially in the South- Fried Chicken & Pickles @ the gas station register.
Recent Comments
- Gordan on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Tweets that mention John Piper on Sermon Prep -- Topsy.com on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Erik on Running from God and To God
- donsands on Running from God and To God
- Tweets that mention Running from God and To God- Irish Calvinist -- Topsy.com on Running from God and To God
Erik,
Are you trying to push my hot buttons?
Circle this comment, star it, underline it but take heed my faithful brethren in Jesus Christ!!
This book is the warning for evangelical Christianity and it’s undermining of Scripture, like a warning siren is for an f5 tornado that is coming to town! Unfortunately, I am able to speak with such authority and reliability on this problem because of what I know.
I am a pastor and alumni of Dallas Theological Seminary. As much as I hate to say it, The tide of egalitarianism has broken through the city wall and has infiltrated the city (DTS). I know first hand professors that hold to the egalitarian views via the arguments that Wayne Grudem explains in his book. One particular professor told me he sees no distinction in husband-wife roles and no limit to the Pastors-Elder role. Upon contacting the seminary, the response from them is that women are not allowed to take the Pastoral Ministries track. However, their is nothing that prohibits professors from holding or teaching the egalitarian point of view. In addition, women preach the bible in chapel to a mixed group of people. The first time it happened (anne grahm lotz) I was a student and there was an uproar. I figured (wrongly) that this wouldn’t happen again. Now, it has become a regular thing.
You might say: well big deal it is just one seminary! No, there are lots of evangelical seminaries that have fully changed. Also, the rich heritage and history of Dallas Theological Seminary was to produce faithful expositors of God’s Word. DTS has filled many good bible churches with pastors in the past. Now, it has become another casualty. Unless there is serious change it is a foregone conclusion.
Take heed my brethren, take heed.. Scripture is being undermined in the name of egalitarianism.
Steve
No comment except to say that I’m glad to see you doing book reviews. Do more of them!
This is a great book. I read it last month, and my wife is reading it now. I think that Grudem does a great job of showing the truth in a way that anybody can understand (without difficult to understand philosophical arguments). It is pretty simple, and very scary to think through the ramifications of their thought processes.
Thanks for this review Erik. I have not read this book, but will definitely be getting it now. I agree with Tim – keep doing reviews…
Thanks for the thoughts / warnings. It is truly disheartening to hear of what is going on at Dallas. The good news is our salvation, hope, and value is not derived from or ascribed to a seminary or people. We can pray for them though.
I found part IV of the book so alarming in light of where this agenda is moving…connecting dots is sometimes the most troubling but also the most motivating moments.
I agree Jim, it is simple. Very clear and easy to read.
>I’ll try to write some more reviews…I am reading a really bad evangelism book right now that I am motivated to interact with.
Do you think it is because there are so many of those “4 point” Calvinists at DTS? Do you think if they understood limited atonement it would straighten out the rest of their interpretations? If I wasn’t Catholic and asked this question would you post my comment?
)
Genuinely Curious! (though I’m sure I sound cynical)
David
David,
You ask an interesting question. I think that there is some relation, however probably not in the way that you were thinking. The core problem at DTS is not that they deny “limited atonement” aka “particular redemption” or that they are allowing more and more liberal theology into their seminary. The core problem is that they have given into a position where “sola Scriptura” is claimed but not actually possessed. What I mean by this is that they claim to believe in “sola Scriptura” but they deny it in some of the ways that they act (Grudem’s book explains this point better than I could). Flowing out from this practical denial of “sola Scriptura” comes the “evangelical feminism” that Grudem points out and the “unlimited atonement” that you point out. The latter flows out because is is a very comfortable position to take, as it really changes much of the gospel.
John MacArthur’s new book “The Truth War” uses Jude to show how important it is to expose and fight false teaching and apostasy in today’s church.
Thanks for the review! I think book reviews are one of the best aspects of Christian blogs.
That said, I want to make a quick comment on this volumes. The vast majority of Grudem’s arguments, especially those highlighted above, deal with questions of undermining Scriptural authority. I certainly don’t want to do that. But, what if good exegesis suggests that what we have always taken to be the plain meaning of Scripture on this issue is actually not the best reading? This totally changes the question.
I highly recommend Craig Keener’s book, Paul, Women and Wives as a way into the intricate exegesis of important NT (and especially Pauline) passages of import for this discussion.
Wow, it is very ironic that I came across this seeing as I was trying to explain to one of my female friends why men are needed in the church. I concur with other people here that I love the idea of book reviews and would like to see more. I have been thinking about picking up this book for a while but now I will most likely order it off Amazon by the end of the day. It has been disheartening to see among my Christian female friends a sense that any masculinity in the church is a bad thing and one that ostracizes women. Thanks Again for the review.
J. Ligon Duncan, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, MS. writes,
“You can chart every denomination that has placed women in leadership in the last 120 years and you can chart their numerical decline in the western world and their theological decline. When our evangelical egalitarian friends whine that we are using an illegitimate slippery slope argument, this is not some sort of wild-haired spin theory that we are coming up with. It is a fact.
Just go look at the denominational statistics, look at the denominational histories of the last 120 years and you cannot find an exception to this trend. (http://www.gender-news.com/article.php?id=42)
I’ve spent most of my life interacting with DTS thinking. My Walvoord & Zuck commentary is right next to my leg. I find it disturbing that someone would think these genuine followers of Christ would take a stand on the examples mentioned. [“Paul was Wrong” “Later Developments trump Scripture” “We should ignore the disputed passages” “A pastor’s authority trumps Scripture” “Tradition trumps Scripture” “Experience trumps Scripture”
“Calling trumps Scripture”]
I’ve never met a genuine follower of the WORD, the LOGOS, Christ that would ever believe such nonsense. This author is building straw men and tearing them down if these are his points. There are better ways to defend one’s interpretation.
Then to say that because some at DTS disagree with the Calvinist interpretation it means they don’t believe in sola scriptura is a stretch. Or maybe it isn’t. Perhaps it is like MacArthur saying he doesn’t believe in a pope and then acting like one in regard to his own personal interpretation. (ie. eschatology)
My friends that wear head coverings use your arguments to say all that don’t wear coverings just don’t believe scripture or submit to it’s authority alone. It isn’t about interpretation to them in regard to their main issue. They say it’s crystal clear. 1 Cor 11:10 “That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.” RSV
By the way is there a “head covering” division of Calvinism? I want to go to their web page.
Anyway, my point is that everytime one division in the “sola scriptura” group
wants to make their point they say the others don’t accept the clear authority of the scripture when in reality they are all talking about each others interpretations (or misinterpretations). Now come on, you have to admit some truth to this observation.
Genuinely Curious (I am trying not to sound cynical)
David
Erik, I hope you give me one more comment.
In another 50 years lets say that Calvinist alone remain standing with the Catholics in holding on to male “headship” in the home (the Domestic Church) and in the Church (Body of Christ). If what J. Ligon Duncan, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church states is true (and I believe it is) and it continues in the current trends. Then only Catholics will remain (except for you old Calvinist in your 80s), because we won’t ever accept the culture of death (ie. contraception) as anything but evil.
It has to make you wonder. Truly, brothers, I hope many see the evils of contraception before all that, but the point is that we must remain real men, which means to lead, which means to serve. It has been established in the Law of Creation and more clearly defined in the written Law of scripture that male and female are equal in dignity but different in responsibility and roles.
I think some of you guys would be impressed by the reasons the Catholic Church has maintained for men only Priests (Shepherds) and Deacons (Servants)
Press On!
David
Hi Erik, I’m a firm complementarian but I have some questions about this book. The egalitarians I’ve engaged on this question don’t seem to fit Grudem’s model. None of them used the arguments listed to get around 2Ti 2:12. The evangelical ones appeal to scripture, they don’t dismiss it. Is Grudem’s work aimed at evangelical egalitarians or is it aimed at liberal ones in an attempt to show where evangelical egalitarianism is likely to go?
What concerns me is that the hermeneutic evangelical egalitarians employ leaves the door open to dismiss most/many of the other ethical prohibitions of the New Testament. Indeed, I heard the same hermeneutic employed by Gene Robinson the openly homosexual Episcopal Bishop. (Sorry for the self-promoting link but it is the only place I know of with the quote I wanted to share.) So in that sense, it does undermine the authority of scripture, but not as crassly as indicated above. I mean we’d see and resist an open attack like that, but an approach that still ‘respects’ scripture but reinterprets it is a sneak attack we might get caught out by.
To kind of echo what pastorsteve says above, I’m a seminary student at TEDS and egalitarianism is present there. It isn’t promoted but it is there. In Systematic Theology we had to write a paper interacting with the issue. The school doesn’t take sides though the Evangelical Free Church of America (our school’s denomination) won’t ordain women however we will issue women and MDiv. Some of the faculty are egalitarian.
I think there is a change coming within the Free Church on this. I know of two large EFCA churches who consider themselves complimentarian but have women in positions with the title “pastor”. They don’t have them as elders so I guess they figure they’re still complenetarian. :-/ (So go figure, we have a pre-mill requirement in our statement of faith but nothing on this issue.)
There is change coming within larger evangelicalism on this issue. Mark Driscoll’s video was not allowed to be distributed because Bill Hybels thought it was too complimentarian. This does not bode well for evangelicalism’s more distant future. Biblical authority will be undermined.
Tim,
“Is Grudem’s work aimed at evangelical egalitarians or is it aimed at liberal ones in an attempt to show where evangelical egalitarianism is likely to go?”
It hits both. I just gave a few of the arguments but the whole book is full of objections. And, more importantly, he demonstrates the common thinking (or not thinking) and hermeneutic that hatches such conclusions.
You touch on a key issue here:
“The school doesn’t take sides though the Evangelical Free Church of America (our school’s denomination) won’t ordain women however we will issue women and MDiv. Some of the faculty are egalitarian.”
The signal that is being sent is confusing at best and troubling at worst. Grudem touches on this in his book, as well as committees, organizations, missionaries, etc. It is helpful to think through.
Well TEDS is intentionally broadly evangelical. My first academic adviser was Paul Feinberg and he was the head of the ST department (before he died). He told me that they were trying to recruit a good Arminian teacher because they were concerned the faculty was leaning too heavily Reformed. What was funny was that he was so frustrated at the candidate’s view of Biblical inerrancy. He said they were all Barthian and didn’t even know it!
They did find someone.
Is it confusing? I suppose it could be. There was nothing like taking NT 622 Acts and Pauline Epistles with Calvinist Carson and then NT 621 Synoptics and Johannine with Arminian Osborne.
Both taught from their perspective and were gracious when interacting with the other. I think that’s better than getting a strawman of the opposing view. Then again, I came to TEDS with pretty firm theological convictions so it was interesting to hear opposing views but I wasn’t swayed by them. Younger guys might be I suppose.
What bothers me about the way TEDS dealing with the complimentarian/egalitarian issue is that they aren’t. There is no or little direct dialog between the positions. I wish Grudem was still here. :-/
Ah but I ramble. Sorry for taking comment space for such a tangent. Great blog. I peek in on occasion. Keep up the good work.
David,
Priests = shepherds ?????
It is not the same word in the greek and doesn’t carry the same meaning!
In addition, how is a priest carrying out his headship (see qualifications in Titus & Timothy) when he is celibate?
There are plenty of differences between Roman Catholic theology and the theology of evangelical christianity (5,4, or 3 point calvinists). So, it would probably be better to have that discussion at some later time. However, you must know that there are some 5 point calvinists at the seminary. Therefore, this book is very beneficial to all, who read it.
Tim,
having worked my way through this book, you would be surprised that there are a number of “evangelical egalitarians” that use one of these arguments. In fact, having heard some of them first hand…. It was great to see a book that did a good job stating and refuting these arguments as they are really presented. I do not believe Wayne Grudem constructs any strawmen arguments in the book. I (for one) am very thankful that the book came out when it did.
I am not chicken little about this theological heresy. Jesus can and will see His will done on earth in spite of this and other problems. Yet, it is sad to see friends and pastors get sucked into this problem. The siren has been sounded so that others don’t get deceived into such nonsense!
I have just been listening to Piper’s sermons on Headship and the role of Men in the home. Great to listen to!
All I can say, pastorsteve, is wow. That’s tragic that evangelicals would offer that kind of an answer! At least Ben Witherington and Linda L. Belleville giver ‘better’ answers than that! I mean they’re still wrong but they at least try to maintain the integrity of Scripture!
I’m depressed now. Going to read Calvin and hide from the world.
I haven’t read the book, but from talking to people that have and reading reviews, I think I can see some misunderstanding creeping in of what Grudem says.
His arguments don’t start with someone saying that something trumps scripture, but that is the logical conclusion of where the argument is taking them.
Therefore you need to buy and read the book, to see if he is using straw men, but it sounds incredibly helpful that he is pointing out how sound sounding arguments can actually be undermining the authority of Scripture.
Grace and Peace
Alex
Too bad that speel check doesn’t work on the Title. Have fun with that plank! Seiously though, I said gravy “boat”, and what Pat said was even funnier.
Er…make that “spell” check. Seems I have just impaled myself on said plank.
Quick question, I was talking to my sister and mother about this earlier both are big Joyce Meyers fans and when I ask them about I Timothy 2:12 they say that Joyce says these women he was talking about were disrupting the worship and so Paul was telling them not to speak and make noises during worship. I am not sure how you infer that from the text but thats what they say, any thoughts one this?
Stephen Robeson,
I would challenge your mother and sister as to how they know that “these women [Paul] was talking about were disrupting the worship and so Paul was telling them not to speak and make noises during worship.”
A good resource to have in confronting people who make similar assumptions is “Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15″ edited by Andreas J Kostenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, published by Baker Books, 1995.
S. M. Baugh, In Chapter 1 titled, “A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century,” writes,
“What may come as a surprise to the reader, though, is that the ancient Epesisans themselves would find this modern portrait of their culture, of Artimis Ephesia, and of her cult as unbelievably strange–in fact, mythical. The “feminist Ephesus” did not exist, even though the idea of it and its constituent elements are well ingrained in modern popular and even some scholarly literature.”
“What makes the issue of historical background so important is that painting Ephesus as an exotic feminist social-religious culture often serves a popular egalitarian reading of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.” (p. 15)
[...] New Book:Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? May 22nd, 2007 — Jeff de Ruyter I have been meaning to read this for a while. I am going to order it with the ESV Children’s Bible. Irish Calvinist offers a review below: [...]
Stephen,
you wrote:: “Joyce says these women he was talking about were disrupting the worship and so Paul was telling them not to speak and make noises during worship. I am not sure how you infer that from the text but thats what they say, any thoughts one this?”
I am not sure either Stephen, but it is typical in within evangelical feminism. It is far to convenient to inject historical observations into the clear meaning of the text in order to make the text line up with your theology. The problem is God did not say that he does not permit loud woman from teaching but just women. The apostle anchored the command to the creative order which transcends culture.
As an aside, last time I heard Joyce Meyer, flipping through the channels, she was pretty loud.
At the end of the day the natural and clear meaning of the passage is colored and shaped by convenient historical observations that are not alluded to by the author. This is a biblical crime.
What about the non-biblical positions of youth, children’s, worship pastors?
Do these also fall within the 1 Tim 3 umbrella?
The question that has to be asked is whether or not they “excersice authority over a man” (1 TIm. 2.12)…there is some thoughtful consistent and faithful interpretation and application applied here.
here at OBC we do not have women leading music (i assume you mean music when you say ‘worship’ but in reality the preacher is a worship pastor too), teaching jr or sr high…but we do have women teach children and other women.
thanks for rephrasing my question, my version was a bit vague, eh? my bad on the worship thing…
so can a woman be a youth pastor? I don’t think we can categorize teenage boys as ‘men’.
I’m just a little uncomfortable dropping the ‘pastor’ label on a woman…i understand the teenager argument, but my preference would be having a guy in there. Some of the HS guys in our church can grow a better beard than me (not that facial hair is the distinguisher, but it helps us think).
[...] Erik Raymond at IrishCalvinist.com (05/07) Review [...]
[...] /2/ Evangelical Feminism: Grudem was masterful in this book. He interacted with the arguments in the egalitarian position with biblical fidelity and consistent clarity. (read the full review) [...]
[...] rendering of Isa. 7:14, and egalitarian and evangelical feminist influence. For the latter, see here and here. Of course much the same could be said of several Reformed seminaries and the feminism. [...]
In response to David Ulmer (May 18, 2007).
These reviews are outdated, and so you will probably not see this response. I will respond anyway.
Reading so many of these peoples’ writings, as a woman I could want to cry. I have been a longtime supporter of DTS and still am. It breaks my heart to hear the anger and hate in these book reviews. I feel sorry for many of their wives, if they have any.
I want to thank you, David, for a very intelligent response. To quote:
“I’ve spent most of my life interacting with DTS thinking. My Walvoord & Zuck commentary is right next to my leg. I find it disturbing that someone would think these genuine followers of Christ would take a stand on the examples mentioned. [“Paul was Wrong” “Later Developments trump Scripture” “We should ignore the disputed passages” “A pastor’s authority trumps Scripture” “Tradition trumps Scripture” “Experience trumps Scripture”
“Calling trumps Scripture”]
I’ve never met a genuine follower of the WORD, the LOGOS, Christ that would ever believe such nonsense. This author is building straw men and tearing them down if these are his points. There are better ways to defend one’s interpretation.
Then to say that because some at DTS disagree with the Calvinist interpretation it means they don’t believe in sola scriptura is a stretch. Or maybe it isn’t. Perhaps it is like MacArthur saying he doesn’t believe in a pope and then acting like one in regard to his own personal interpretation. (ie. eschatology)
My friends that wear head coverings use your arguments to say all that don’t wear coverings just don’t believe scripture or submit to it’s authority alone. It isn’t about interpretation to them in regard to their main issue. They say it’s crystal clear. 1 Cor 11:10 “That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.” RSV
By the way is there a “head covering” division of Calvinism? I want to go to their web page.
Anyway, my point is that everytime one division in the “sola scriptura” group
wants to make their point they say the others don’t accept the clear authority of the scripture when in reality they are all talking about each others interpretations (or misinterpretations). Now come on, you have to admit some truth to this observation.”
I appreciate a person, whether they agree or disagree on any topic, that can keep the discussion in context.
Thank you.
By the way, I am struggling through this “role of women in the church” discussion. I was reading about this book along with many other resources. The only place I’ve seen any person who was supposed to be having an intellectual discussion write the words:
“Paul was Wrong”
“Later Developments trump Scripture”
“We should ignore the disputed passages”
“A pastor’s authority trumps Scripture”
“Tradition trumps Scripture”
“Experience trumps Scripture”
“Calling trumps Scripture”
was this author. I think I agree that he was building a strawman to knock him down.
Again, thank you for your response, or I think I would have just shut down my computer and felt horrible about myself.
Just another book by a right-wing, traditionalist nut. He really thinks a woman’s role is to keep her man’s belly full and his balls empty.
Ha. I needed a good laugh. Thanks Dr_JHP. I would dare to say that you haven’t read it.