Sarah Bessey, author of Jesus Feminist, has a lengthy blog post expressing her disagreement with Candace Cameron Bure. Last week, Bure was in the news for defending a complementarian view of gender roles. Bessey argues that Bure’s decision to submit to her husband is both unbiblical and harmful to women. Bessey’s remarks are pretty standard egalitarian fare. There’s nothing really new at all in her critique of complementarianism. Nevertheless, there was one line in her post that jumped off of the page at me. It stood out not because it is new, but because it is “Exhibit A” of what is wrong with egalitarian exegesis. Here’s the sentence:
-
-
Why the Trinity must inform our views on gender roles
I am in hearty agreement with Fred Sanders’ critique of Larry Crabb’s new book on gender. The connections that Crabb makes between Trinitarian doctrine and gender roles seem to be entirely speculative and not founded in what the scriptures actually say. In short, Crabb’s paradigm is unmoored from the Bible, and Sanders has shown the flawed basis of Crabb’s thesis. Having said that, there’s one detail in Sanders’ critique that I would take exception with. I’m reluctant to mention it because I’m a big fan of Sanders. He’s one of the bright lights of evangelical theology and has produced some remarkable work on the Trinity. If you haven’t read his…
-
Pastoral leadership is not a “choose your own adventure”
Laura Ortberg Turner has an interesting contribution to CT’s series on women in leadership. In “Too Girly To Lead?,” Turner contends that God doesn’t care about gender when it comes to pastoral leadership. She appeals to 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, which says, There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. Turner observes that Paul says nothing about these gifts being gender-specific, and then she concludes that both women and men receive spiritual gifts that make them…
-
How not to engage the evangelical gender debate
I was taken aback by a recent article that appeared on Christianity Today’s Her.meneutics blog. The author, Rachel Pietka, is a Ph.D. candidate at Baylor University, and she criticizes John Piper’s recent remarks about whether men ought to read Biblical commentaries written by women. On the basis of 1 Timothy 2:12, Piper argues that while women ought not be pastors, men might well benefit from reading a commentary written by a woman. On the basis of Piper’s remarks, Pietka deduces that Piper has some sort of a hang-up with the physical presence of women. Women can teach men, she charges, so long as their bodies aren’t physically present during the…
-
Tom Wright on Anglican Vote Rejecting Female Bishops
Tom Wright has an op-ed in The Times of London today commenting on the Anglican decision not to ordain women as bishops. Wright’s article is a response in large part to Prime Minister David Cameron’s admonition to the church to “get with the program.” Wright thinks Cameron oversteps his bounds in telling the church what it ought to do. Perhaps I’m not the only one who would note the irony of an Anglican church leader complaining about the state chiming-in on church matters. But that is not what I am mainly concerned about here.
-
Mary Kassian Reviews “Year of Biblical Womanhood”
Mary Kassian has a helpful review of Rachel Held Evans’ “A Year of Biblical Womanhood.” At the heart of Kassian’s critique is Evans’ consistent caricature of complementarianism. Kassian writes: Sadly, the complementarianism portrayed in A Year of Biblical Womanhood is just another tiresome straw (wo)man argument. I think Rachel’s publicity stunt confuses rather than clarifies the issues. Most complementarians who read the book are bound to feel gravely misrepresented, misunderstood, and even hurt by it.
-
Some Positive Reviews of “A Year of Biblical Womanhood”
I’ve noted two negative reviews of Rachel Held Evans’ new book A Year of Biblical Womanhood, but we would do well to note the appearance of three positive reviews as well. They are written by scholars of the Bible, and each of them generally commends Evans as a reliable guide to the interpretation of Scripture. They even suggest that she has a more sophisticated hermeneutic than her complementarian critics. In their own words: Ben Witherington – “Rachel Held Evans is not just another woman using the Bible to write about women’s experiences. She actually is quite adept at Biblical interpretation and has done some good reading and research and exegetical…
-
A Response to Rachel Held Evans on the Today Show
Earlier this morning, Rachel Held Evans appeared on NBC’s “Today Show” to promote her book A Year of Biblical Womanhood (see above). I have the book and intend to review it, but some of the errors in her remarks this morning were so serious that I thought they deserved a response in advance of the review.
-
Christianity Today’s 50 Women To Watch
The cover story of the October issue of Christianity Today is a list of “50 Women You Should Know.” Sarah Pulliam Bailey writes that these are women who are “profoundly shaping the evangelical church and North American society.” It’s an interesting list that includes both evangelicals (like Beth Moore) and non-evangelicals (like Rachel Held Evans). The list also includes women who you wouldn’t normally find on the Christian speaking circuit—women like Bethany Hamilton (surfer), Condoleeza Rice (former Sec. of State), and Michelle Bachmann (politician).
-
Is the Stay-at-Home Dad a Man-Fail?
Moody Radio recently hosted a debate about stay-at-home dads. Owen Strachan squared-off against stay-at-home dad Matt Peregoy and argues that the Bible commands able-bodied men to be the primary bread-winners for their homes. This is a fascinating discussion, and I think Owen does a fantastic job representing a complementarian position. You can download the conversation here or listen below. [audio:http://podcasts.moodyradio.org/UpforDebate/2012-09-15_Up_for_Debate.mp3]