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.
It's far from an auspicious day on which to begin a new BlogThru series, as I feel like my head is stuffed with wet socks due to a long-lasting cold. This site's image uploader is broken, so I cannot spice up this post with a cover image of the book. I also feel a sense of unfinished business, as life being what it is and how it is, I was never able to complete the BlogThru series on John Piper's Future Grace. One day, one day....
But please don't let that somewhat sullen introduction dissuade you from reading further, for the topic of this new BlogThru series, Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is crucial to the life of Christ's Church. What is it? Why does it matter? Whom does it affect?
Before reading this post any further, I would encourage you to read Dwayne's first instalment at his own website, The Sound of Forehands Clapping.
The Prefaces
The first preface of RBMW (1991) was written by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. They explain how they wrote the book to counteract twenty years of what they call "evangelical feminism" in the Church. They define evangelical feminism as a position that professes "personal commitment to Jesus Christ," "the total faithfulness of Scripture," and claims a place under the big tent of evangelicalism. Despite these commitments, however, evangelical feminists insist upon new interpretations of Scripture to support a non-traditional understanding of gender in Christianity.
Piper and Grudem clearly have little patience with traditional roles for the sake of mere tradition. They criticize traditional positions as less than satisfactory, for these positions are failing to answer recent evangelical feminist arguments. Their aim is to equip the segment of the Church that still holds to the traditional positions on gender in Christianity (from now on referred to as "complementarian"), not to merely refute evangelical feminism, but to "recover a noble vision of manhood and womanhood as God created them to be." While affirming the equal status of men and women, Piper and Grudem insist upon role distinctions according to gender, for the benefit of both sexes. Anything less will upset the harmony of living within the instrastructure of God's initial design.
In the newer preface (2006), Ligon Duncan (Chairman of the Board, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) and Randy Stinson (Executive Director of the same) reiterate the need for a collection of complementarian article such as are found in RBMW. Duncan and Stinson bemoan the fact that egalitarianism is fast becoming the default position on gender in many evangelical denominations, often without the due diligence of studying the biblical data concerning gender. Like Piper and Grudem, they insist upon the status of men and women as "image bearers of the living God and equals before the cross." Instead of a dour, patriarchal vision of gender, they promote complementarianism as a "cause for celebration rather than apology because it provides the covenantal framewok in which men and women experience covenantal privileges and responsibilities." Putting it much more strongly than Piper and Grudem did in 1991, Duncan and Stinson maintain that "Pagan ideas underlie evangelical egalitarianism, based, as it is, on ideas borrowed from cultural feminism. Egalitarianism must always lead to an eventual denial of the gospel." As I once heard a British Columbian Chinook say, them's strong words, and this BlogThru series is dedicated in part to discovering whether such strong words are warranted.
My Preface
My new friend Dwayne seems to be more recent convert to Christianity than I am. In fact, I jokingly refer to myself as a Christian from the womb. I grew up with the Scriptures and never questioned the complentarian view. When I was in my late teens, the late theologian Stanley Grenz of Regent College spent a few months walking our Canadian Baptist church through the teachings of both views of gender. Problem was, we were more confused than ever at the end of it all, and quite a few people left the church. Even today I don't question the basic tenets of complementarianism. What I am unclear about, however, is the extent to which Scripture permits godly women - and indeed, encourages them! - to serve in the Church. As I embark upon a path, Lord willing, toward ordained ministry in the new Anglican Church in North America, the topic of biblical fidelity will be front and center both for me and for the new Anglican province.
My questions (thus far) are these:
- What is the female role in the Church, not only as a community of believers, but as an institution? These identities should be interchangeable but are not always so.
- Do the covenant privileges and responsibilties described by Duncan and Stinson trump individual Christian liberty?
- Are we removing ourselves from God's blessing, individually and corporately, if we reject the biblical teaching on gender? Or is God "big enough" to look the other way?
My Quest
In this quest to come to a settled biblical position on gender, I want to remain faithful to the exposition of the Scriptures as once delivered. This is why I've welcomed the opportunity to carry on this BlogThru series in dialogue with Dwayne. I'd encourage anyone who wants to weigh in on the topic to do so at Dwayne's blog, where we will be facilitating the discussion. We are confident that many of you readers are more intelligent, more godly, and more articulate than we are, so please join us! Sharpen us! Exalt God with us as we seek to honor his design for men and women!
