RBMW The Preface
This post is part of a larger series of posts by Dwayne Forehand and Mark Tubbs on the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW). The entire book is available online for free here or buy it on Amazon. Click here for a complete list of posts in the series.
The Prefaces
The preface for the first edition of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was written by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. You can read it here.
The authors state that since the ’70s the feminist movement in society at large has increased and that the resulting movement of “evangelical feminism” has also increased. By “evangelical feminism,” the authors are speaking of those who hold to the tenets of feminism and also profess Jesus Christ as their lord and hold the Scriptures to be the authority on truth.
A large body of work had been produced during this time by evangelical feminists that the authors noted as being “persuasive to many Christians.” Though the vast majority of evangelicals had rejected this view, a controversy of huge proportion was only getting hotter.
It is towards the solution of this controversy that Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was written. The authors hope the book will not only answer the varied arguments of evangelical feminists, but also to “help Christians recover a noble vision of manhood and womanhood.” This view they call “complementarianism,” for they say the term carries both a suggestion of equality and also beneficial differences.
For those who are largely unfamiliar with the controversy in general, Bruce Ware has provided a concise paper summarizing the differences between the complementarian and the egalitarian (evangelical feminist) position that I think is fair to both sides.
When RBMW was re-released in 2006, the new preface made it clear that while the authors believed complementarians had offered up an impressive body of theological argument, they were losing ground and fast. From evangelical publishers to campus ministries, a feminist viewpoint was becoming the norm, not the exception. In many denominations, this controversial issue is, well, no controversy at all.
My Preface
At this point, I think I should preface what I am doing here with all of this, or more precisely why I am doing this. My wife and I have spent most of our Christian lives at Mars Hill in Seattle, and, for those who don’t know, Mars Hill is complementarian (some would say hyper-complementarian!). I picked up the view there myself, but it’s easy for young Christians to share pretty much any and all views of their beloved pastors and friends though, right? That being said, a closer personal examination of the relevant passages would be good for me.
But that’s not really what interests me the most. You see, both of these views on gender within the church do not simply address the questions of “how do a husband and wife relate?” and “can women be pastors?” Both views offer answers to much, much deeper questions that are relevant to any man or woman whether or not they are married or desiring to be a pastor.
Piper has asked before, “What do you tell your little boy when he asks you, ‘Daddy, what does it mean to grow up and be a man and not a woman?’ or ‘Mommy, what does it mean to grow up and be a woman and not a man?’” Piper has said that if all you can respond with is an anatomical answer, then you are setting your children up for disaster.
I’ll let a bit of the cat out of the bag right now: I don’t have an answer to that question that really satisfies me, and I am not yet convinced that that is a problem.
Update!
Mark Tubbs parallel post is up now on Discerning Reader.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
>>>Both views offer answers to much, much deeper questions that are relevant to any man or woman whether or not they are married or desiring to be a pastor.<<<
Finally! NOW you have my attention.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Glad to see this series kicking off.
It’s sad to see Piper & Grudem equate Christian egalitarianism with political feminism. While I don’t deny that the feminist movement of the 20th century opened the door for evangelical egalitarianism, in my experience most egalitarian’s don’t share many of the radical views of political feminism.
And could we agree that it’s OK to abbreviate the two sides in this discussion–perhaps comps and egals? I’m going to grow quickly weary of typing egalitarian and complimentarian over and over! ;-)
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
No kidding. After typing the terms at least a hundred times I still spell them both incorrectly every dang time!
I don’t think Piper and Grudem equate “feminism” with “evangelical feminism” in the preface and I hope that I didn’t give that impression. Though the authors present the two movements as related they also present them as distinct.
From the original preface (emphasis mine):
Also, I haven’t heard the term “evangelical feminism” in any of the current literature, because I think egalitarian has replaced it as the more popular term.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
First, I second Mark’s suggestion about comps and egals – I too am constantly misspelling them.
I just read Mark Tubb’s introduction. Mark, I agree with you. After reading Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, I came away with more questions then answers, particularly in relation to serving in the church.
Now, if I want to sit and be a quiet woman member who only serves church lunches and does nursery duty – no problem. But questions arise as opportunities come to serve on building committees, outreach committees, pulpit search committees, serve in small groups (other then hosting and baking goodies), teach High School or Jr. High Sunday School class with both genders, pray outloud in prayer meetings, speak and argue politely a point in Sunday School – I could go on. This is the world that smart, well-read, church-loving, Christ-serving women live.
Looking forward to your & Dwayne’s blog read through.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Chris, out of curiosity what do you think would be the reasoning behind allowing a women to teach High School aged boys and girls, but not adult men and women?
March 5th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Chris, I’m on board with abbreviating the two positions to comps and egals. Otherwise I’m going to wear out certain laptop keys.
I too am hoping that this book will answer both the theological and tangible questions – again, I suppose they should be interchangeable – and I have another question to add to the list from my post:
In the Church as family of God, what is the place and function of older women’s maternal wisdom? Does Titus 2 restrict older women from speaking into the lives of younger men, and does 1 Timothy 2 teach that a 60 year-old woman cannot rebuke or admonish a 20 year-old man? I’m playing to the extremes here, but this would seem to be the logical extension of the some stricter complementarian interpretations of Scripture.
Any thoughts?
March 5th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Very fitting avatar Mark. :)
The only restrictions on older women in the Titus 2 passage that I see are against irreverent behavior, slandering, addiction to wine and teaching what is bad.
They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women . . . I do take these words to be at least carrying an implication that their focus on who they will train will be younger wives. This seems obvious. Who best to offer instruction to younger wives then mature older wives? Same thing for young husbands or young pastors or for that matter young business folks who are looking for wisdom – Go to Godly folks who share your roles.
Those are some of my thoughts on that passage. I’m going to wait till the book comes to 1 Timothy 2 before saying anything on that. I’m thinking I obviously have a lot of studying to do. :)
March 14th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I’m sorry not to reply earlier I’ve been away on a college tour with our son. Giving spiritual advice along with my husband:)
I’m not sure if you are asking my opinion or the opinion of those who allow teaching of HS boys and girls by a woman, and not adults. Let me answer it one way and then you can reask if I am not answering the right question.
The reason why a woman would be allowed to teach HS boys and girls and not adults would be because HS boys are still in their parents home, under their mother’s authority as a parent. Their mother is still teaching, guiding and offering years of Biblical wisdom to her son. Particularly in a home-schooling situation – you would see the mother helping with Biblical studies and often entering discussions of spiritual application in all areas of study.
At adulthood, a child has left home and is now responsible in many areas for leadership. In our society, he is no longer a child (he can join the army, drink (if 21), vote etc.). We consider this a passage into adulthood. No longer should he be under the spiritual authority of a woman.
At least that’s the argument as I understand it. In my church this argument is rejected and the prohibition of woman teaching boys and girls in Sunday School goes down to 5th grade.
I’ve not heard a formal discussion as to why 6th grade is the cut-off, but this view is not uncommon. This is one reason why I’m interested in your blog study.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Chris,
Your story about the varying takes on age limit for women teaching boys/men displays just why evangelical comp began to unravel for me. The silliness of the age argument displays what happens when we confuse a first century Jewish-Greco/Roman context with our own. This is why I have come to reject biblical hermeneutics that ignores ancient contexts.
Another example of how absurd this can get. I know a woman who was nearly unanimously recognized as perhaps the best teacher ever in her subject area (biblical languages) at a conservative seminary. Even though there was no rule on the books that would prevent her or any woman from teaching any class in the seminary (because the seminary would lose its secular accreditation), no woman ever had, and everyone knew that no woman ever would. As it was, she was never called a professor, even though she did as much as any professor. She was given a made up title so conservative students wouldn’t get upset.
The assumption seemed to be that is was “safe” for a woman to teach languages because she wasn’t teaching doctrine or theology. The delicious irony is that because the advanced level of the class involved intensive translation and discussion of the text, she was teaching theology and doctrine all the time.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I’m wondering if what’s going on is that they are simply trying their best to implement what they believe to be a Scriptural principle (that women should not teach men.) Maybe they are not trying to say “The BIBLE says that women can’t teach 12 year old males!” but instead are saying “We believe God says that women should not teach men and for the sake of clarity in our community we choose to recognize 12 year old males as young men.” I’m just thinking out loud here though…
Mark, in case you do not know, not all who consider themselves complementarians forbid women from teaching men. When 1 Timothy 2 says I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man some take the teaching and authority as being coupled together.
In other words they take Paul’s instructions as “I do not permit a women to authoritatively teach a man.” What does that mean? Well, they take it to mean that Paul is not forbidding women from teaching in general, but from teaching as one with the unique authority of an Elder of the Church.
It’s funny that you bring up the woman you know who excelled in biblical languages, because Mark Driscoll was taught Hebrew by a woman. He is one of those complementarians who hold the above mentioned view and has no problem being taught by a woman per se.
I am not advocating that view one way or another now (the future chapters of this book will provide room for that!) I am simply noting that just as there are nuances within the egalitarian community, such nuances exist in the complementarian community as well.
I’d love to talk about the cultural view as well and you guys are free to, but I’ll restrain myself for future chapters where this will come particularly into play.
Have a great weekend folks!
March 14th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Appreciate the nuance, Dwayne. I know there are variations in both “camps.” It still strikes me as something, though, that easily becomes reduction ad absurdium.
I’ve known churches that won’t use hymnals with any woman hymn writers in them, because that would be women teaching men when the men sang the hymns!
March 14th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
LOL man we definitely have different church backgrounds to say the least!
March 14th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Oh…that wasn’t any church that I went to! No way!
March 15th, 2009 at 2:01 am
I had to laugh, “we choose to recognize 12 year old males as young men.”
Wonder if before deciding this they’d carpooled a number of 12 year old boys to a LaserTag birthday party?
March 15th, 2009 at 7:48 am
oh snap! :)
March 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Chris, thanks for re-joining the discussion. Like Mark, the discussion starts to unravel for me when we talk about specific ages. However, your point about the maturity threshold at which our culture deems boys to have become young men is well taken. In light of Al Mohler’s thoughts (http://tinyurl.com/3ohx3a) about the marks of manhood, I wonder if your church should revisit its policy? I have great appreciation for those wise women in Christ’s Church who hold the innate moral authority to cuff a dumb 18 year-old on the ear if he is misbehaving.
Four women are included as authors or co-authors of some of the best two commentaries on each book of the Bible at BestCommentaries.com, a site associated with Ligonier Ministries, I believe. There again is the slippery slope I think we begin to go down when we get too precise about what constitutes women not being able to teach. I have my own ideas about the helpfulness of quoting extra-biblical sources during a sermon (I think it’s distracting and can lead to undue adulation of those quoted – and please don’t mention Paul’s quotation of Epimenides at Mars Hill), but those aside, is it improper for a speaker to quote a female author?
Just wanted to get my oar in. I’ll catch up with the next RBMW discussion thread in due course.
Mark@DR