I am starting a series of posts to discuss arguments being presented by prominent figures in the church today on the topic of manhood and womanhood. I believe that there is great need for more conversation, not that there hasn’t been a plethora already. But I have seen little that rings absolutely true, and have yet to find a prevalent model that I can wholeheartedly support. I am not, I repeat, not, trying to set myself up as an authority. I aim to think through some things and offer my thoughts for whatever they may be worth. (If I can’t do that, I might as well quit blogging, or writing and speaking altogether.) I aim to discern, not to judge. So I ask that whoever reads what I write consider the truth or falsehood of my claims merely for what they are.
So in the end, this whole controversy is really about God and how His character is reflected in the beauty and excellence of manhood and womanhood as He created it. Will we glorify God through manhood and womanhood lived according to His Word? Or will we deny His Word and give in to the pressures of modern culture? That is the choice we have to make.–Wayne Grudem, from the homepage of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
I do not know the context from which this quote is taken, but, as it stands alone on the homepage of the CBMW, I will address it as such.
In my view, the controversy is not about God and His character as expressed in gender-specific ways; it is about the ways in which men and women see fit to understand manhood and womanhood. If Grudem is suggesting that the final word on the matter is God’s design for man and woman, and that His character is evident in the godly expression of both manhood and womanhood, then I agree. However, I don’t think that manhood and womanhood themselves hang in the balance. What does hang in the balance is Christian charity, unity, and godly character. What really matters is how we stand before God and live out our lives with one another. What matters are the auspices under which interpretation of Biblical texts is made, and the manner in which disagreement over these texts is handled.
As with the best arguments for, say, Calvinist belief vs. other Christian creeds, there will always be disagreements among sincere followers of Christ. The debate over complementarian vs. egalitarian views toward men and women is no different, which is why I believe that what must come first are the (gender-less) attitudes of humility before God and true charity toward all.Before we ask, “Will we glorify God through manhood and womanhood lived according to His Word?” we must ask, “Will we glorify God as persons redeemed in Christ, according to His Word?” The fruits of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) – know no gender. Nor is their expression gender-specific. Therefore if we say that men and women are different except for being equal heirs of salvation, we make them mostly different in essence, and lose sight of the ways in which their essence is the same. (I.e., they are human, and therefore both possessed of the essence of humanity.) We also lose sight of the true nature of complementarity: that women have to offer what men need and vice-versa, in the fullest possible way that can be realized.
The complementarian view espoused by those associated with the CBMW states that egalitarian thinking evidences a denial of God’s Word and a giving-in to the pressures of modern culture. Which, in some cases, it does. But tensions between the genders and pressures to behave in socially-influenced ways have been around for a long time; they are as old as sin. And I wonder whether this particular view does not also deny portions of God’s Word, as well as the difficulties inherent in translation and interpretation of the text. No Christian, past or present, no matter how pious and erudite, has not held some error in his or her personal interpretation of Scripture. The essentials of faith are, I believe, readily apprehended from the major translations available. But there are many lesser points which are not so readily understandable. I don’t believe that rightness on these lesser points is necessary to personal salvation, or the survival of the church, or the furthering of the gospel (although, on that last point, they may be to some extent).
I wonder whether the efforts of complementarians such as Grudem to counter modern culture are not merely another form of giving in, of giving in to a pressure to counter what they see as a harmful force. Certainly we have more than just the two choices, to either give in or counter; we can also rise above. We can do exegesis and form a theology of gender that is universally true for as long as Creation is in its present state; i.e., since the Curse, and until Christ comes again.
This must be the starting-point for a proper theology of gender: that we recognize the difficulties in the Biblical text, which, while God-breathed in its original form, is subject to the deficiencies of the translation process, which include social influences from which none are immune. We must recognize that interpretation of these texts is not always straightforward, while conceding that the call to extend grace, mercy, peace, gentleness, self-control, patience, kindness, goodness, and faithfulness to one another -- male and female -- is clear indeed.
