A few criticisms I might list are these:
I had a hard time keeping in mind that his point was not to refute evangelical feminism, rather to list the ways evangelical feminists undermine or disregard the authority of Scripture, thus leading to liberalism. In a few instances, he was contradictory, as in his chapter on teaching in the parachurch. And in several places it seems he does not follow his own method of interpretation, but this is difficult to determine since the purpose was not to give an exegesis on the disputed passages. Finally, he leaves some very important terms undefined, such as how evangelism is neither teaching nor presenting passages authoritatively.
I have to hand it to him. He's got some good points. He listed and refuted 15 arguements that evangelical feminists use to justify their position, as well as listed and refuted 10 views evangelical feminists use that are based on claims he says are untruthful or unsubstantiated. Many of these views and claims I was taught both as an undergrad and graduate student in Bible and theology classes. Particularly convicting was his conclusion: many evangelical feminists approach Scripture with the assumption that because men and women are equal, they should share full equality in ministry. We ought to be careful when we come to Scripture that we regard it as truthful and authoritative (as the Word of God Himself). And we ought to realize that we cannot use experience, calling, "prohpecies", tradition or circumstance as our primary reasoning through what we would claim to "know" to be true.
4 comments:
I'm interested as to what you think about the views he says are unsubstantiated since you learned them in school. Also, for me, the key point about what you wrote was to remember that scripture is authoritative. So many people in society, and probably women especially since the Feminist movement, have issues with authority. If we are to believe scripture is truth and desire to live by those truths, then we have to come under the authority of the Word of God completely. Not just when we feel it applies or when we want it to apply. My concern now becomes how scripture is interpreted to be true...
I'll add more later (at least that's the plan), but I like that you are looking at this!
The reason for this post is simply a FYI: The book you mentioned is a more popular, condensed version of a larger work (interpretation: one that people will actually read!). The full work is "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth", a 766 page volume (with small print!), excluding bibliography and indexes! Some of the exegetical detail may be in the larger volume.
I agree with the precept of allowing Scriptures to determine truth. Sometimes, as some traditional views have done, we limit women beyond what Scriptures may sy; sometimes, as do some evangelical feminists, we "ignore" bilical limitations ("ignore" is in quotes because it is a bad word, but my fuzzy brain can't think of a better word. The intent is that the interpretation of these passages are somehow explained away... or something like that)
Hope you get lots of feedback on this - I look forward to seeing "what's up"!
hmm... maybe i'll just listen to what you have to say about it and read it in a few years when i might be able to understand what all this is about. i loved the picture!!! i didnt know that micah could sit up!
Well that was a lot shorter than i thought.
There were a lot of bing words in that post. Is the book harder to read than that?
Oh and the picture really helped.
Post a Comment