What do you think?
Rate this book
Evangelical Feminism?: A New Path to Liberalism?
By critically examining the writings of egalitarians, Grudem shows that, while egalitarian leaders claim to be subject to Scripture in their thinking, what is increasingly evident in their actual scholarship and practice is an effective rejection of the authority of Scripture.
Egalitarianism is heading toward an Adam who is neither male nor female, a Jesus whose manhood is not important, and a God who is both Father and Mother, and then maybe only Mother. The common denominator in all of this is a persistent undermining of the authority of Scripture in our lives. Grudem's conclusion is that we must choose either evangelical feminism or biblical truth. We can't have it both ways!
272 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 13, 2006
22 people are currently reading
191 people want to read
About the author
Wayne Grudem
123 books332 followersWayne Grudem (PhD, University of Cambridge; DD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is research professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary, having previously taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Grudem earned his undergraduate degree at Harvard University, as well as an MDiv from Westminster Seminary. He is the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, a cofounder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible, the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, and has published over 20 books, including Systematic Theology, Evangelical Feminism, Politics—According to the Bible, and Business for the Glory of God.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 13, 2014
To paraphrase Rick Mercer, congratulations Wayne Grudem on basing an entire book upon the slippery slope fallacy.
Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? may very well be one of the most fruitless offerings ever contributed (and I use that word very loosely) to the gender roles debate. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an egalitarian - however, this is not the source of my ire with this book. No, I believe that there are many worthwhile books that advocate the complementarian perspective in a way that is thoughtful and constructive; Grudem's book just isn't one of them.
So what is the problem? Ultimately the problem is that Grudem is determined to set himself up as the gatekeeper of evangelicalism - his perspective is authoritative and anyone who does not agree with him is seeking to undermine the truth of Christianity. This book is not an attempt to argue for the truth of complementarian gender roles, but rather to demonize egalitarians.
Within these pages, Grudem eschews logical argumentation for emotional appeal. He pays lip-service to the Scriptures, to be sure, but they are not his focus here. Instead he chooses to wield fear as a weapon, telling people that if they disagree with his view of gender roles, they have begun a long, painful, inexorable slide into liberalism (which, in Grudem's world, is a synonym for heresy). He argues that feminism necessarily leads to abandoning other doctrines, from the authority of Scripture to the cross itself.
I'm surprised and a little disheartened that more people aren't calling him out on this, because this sort of flawed logic is inexcusable in someone like Grudem. He is a professional theologian; it is high time he began acting like one. Separate issues need to be addressed separately - this is the basics of the basics. His notion of theology being a black and white package deal, where he is the ultimate arbiter of what is "good" and "bad" theology, and where embracing one doctrine he considers "bad" necessarily leads to embracing all of them, is simply beyond the pale.
Where he does interact with the Scriptures and egalitarian theologians, his arguments are consistently facile and narrow, sometimes entirely missing the point of their positions, and always presupposing the authoritativeness of his own interpretation.
To give Grudem the benefit of the doubt, I am sure that he is acting out of genuine pastoral concern. I am sure that he feels that feminism is a grave concern to the Body of Christ and that he is doing God's will in standing up to it. But that doesn't change anything. Whether his motives are benevolent or malicious, he is still exploiting evangelicalism's fear of liberalism (a fear which, by the way, he helped plant) to manipulate them into accepting his theology of gender roles - and that is categorically reprehensible.
To summarize, I would say the same thing about this book that I would say about nearly everything else Grudem has done: If you already disagree with him, the only thing you'll get from this book is frustration; If you already agree with him, the only thing you'll get from this book is a false sense of security in your own beliefs and a laughable caricature of people who think otherwise.
Evangelical Feminism is a book without grace, without nuance, and without merit. Avoid at all costs.
Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? may very well be one of the most fruitless offerings ever contributed (and I use that word very loosely) to the gender roles debate. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an egalitarian - however, this is not the source of my ire with this book. No, I believe that there are many worthwhile books that advocate the complementarian perspective in a way that is thoughtful and constructive; Grudem's book just isn't one of them.
So what is the problem? Ultimately the problem is that Grudem is determined to set himself up as the gatekeeper of evangelicalism - his perspective is authoritative and anyone who does not agree with him is seeking to undermine the truth of Christianity. This book is not an attempt to argue for the truth of complementarian gender roles, but rather to demonize egalitarians.
Within these pages, Grudem eschews logical argumentation for emotional appeal. He pays lip-service to the Scriptures, to be sure, but they are not his focus here. Instead he chooses to wield fear as a weapon, telling people that if they disagree with his view of gender roles, they have begun a long, painful, inexorable slide into liberalism (which, in Grudem's world, is a synonym for heresy). He argues that feminism necessarily leads to abandoning other doctrines, from the authority of Scripture to the cross itself.
I'm surprised and a little disheartened that more people aren't calling him out on this, because this sort of flawed logic is inexcusable in someone like Grudem. He is a professional theologian; it is high time he began acting like one. Separate issues need to be addressed separately - this is the basics of the basics. His notion of theology being a black and white package deal, where he is the ultimate arbiter of what is "good" and "bad" theology, and where embracing one doctrine he considers "bad" necessarily leads to embracing all of them, is simply beyond the pale.
Where he does interact with the Scriptures and egalitarian theologians, his arguments are consistently facile and narrow, sometimes entirely missing the point of their positions, and always presupposing the authoritativeness of his own interpretation.
To give Grudem the benefit of the doubt, I am sure that he is acting out of genuine pastoral concern. I am sure that he feels that feminism is a grave concern to the Body of Christ and that he is doing God's will in standing up to it. But that doesn't change anything. Whether his motives are benevolent or malicious, he is still exploiting evangelicalism's fear of liberalism (a fear which, by the way, he helped plant) to manipulate them into accepting his theology of gender roles - and that is categorically reprehensible.
To summarize, I would say the same thing about this book that I would say about nearly everything else Grudem has done: If you already disagree with him, the only thing you'll get from this book is frustration; If you already agree with him, the only thing you'll get from this book is a false sense of security in your own beliefs and a laughable caricature of people who think otherwise.
Evangelical Feminism is a book without grace, without nuance, and without merit. Avoid at all costs.
September 4, 2020
Wayne Grudem is representative of a large group of complementarians who are concerned about the direction that evangelical feminism (egalitarianism) is taking evangelicalism. Grudem's claim is that egalitarianism will inevitably lead the church into liberalism.
I am still not persuaded that Grudem's claim will necessarily come to fruition, but this is still a very courageous book. Grudem is as fair as a reader could expect him to possibly be given the polemical nature that a book like this takes by design. Grudem is successful in showing that the hermeneutical approach taken by egalitarians undermines the authority of the Bible. If applied consistently it can lead to a redefinition of sin, a conviction that will obviously be challenged by egalitarians. Fortunately, not all of us take our theological weaknesses to their logical conclusions.
Grudem hopes that conservative evangelicals who have embraced egalitarianism will read this book, consider the arguments presented and their potentially destructive consequences. Since he does not mention any positive contributions made by his opponents and structures his whole book around the slippery-slope argument, I doubt that this aim will be successful (and honestly the form of argument does wear you down as Grudem finds creative ways of saying that a whole host of arguments may lead you down the road of liberalism).
Still, Grudem has concerns that I share and he helpfully shows why looking behind the text can become a pretext for reading the Bible through the lens of the cultural climate. I may not pursue some of his arguments with the same vigor (especially when it comes to the Trinity as an analogy for roles in the church and in marriage), and we may need to be careful not to mistake our interpretations for the authority of the Bible, but it is clear that to undermine reasons supplied by the authors of Scripture with our own reasons, based on speculative historical analysis, is extremely dangerous if we want people to be obedient to the Bible's commands.
I am still not persuaded that Grudem's claim will necessarily come to fruition, but this is still a very courageous book. Grudem is as fair as a reader could expect him to possibly be given the polemical nature that a book like this takes by design. Grudem is successful in showing that the hermeneutical approach taken by egalitarians undermines the authority of the Bible. If applied consistently it can lead to a redefinition of sin, a conviction that will obviously be challenged by egalitarians. Fortunately, not all of us take our theological weaknesses to their logical conclusions.
Grudem hopes that conservative evangelicals who have embraced egalitarianism will read this book, consider the arguments presented and their potentially destructive consequences. Since he does not mention any positive contributions made by his opponents and structures his whole book around the slippery-slope argument, I doubt that this aim will be successful (and honestly the form of argument does wear you down as Grudem finds creative ways of saying that a whole host of arguments may lead you down the road of liberalism).
Still, Grudem has concerns that I share and he helpfully shows why looking behind the text can become a pretext for reading the Bible through the lens of the cultural climate. I may not pursue some of his arguments with the same vigor (especially when it comes to the Trinity as an analogy for roles in the church and in marriage), and we may need to be careful not to mistake our interpretations for the authority of the Bible, but it is clear that to undermine reasons supplied by the authors of Scripture with our own reasons, based on speculative historical analysis, is extremely dangerous if we want people to be obedient to the Bible's commands.
March 31, 2021
This is a book that will no doubt result in polarizing reviews. People reading this book are most likely coming to it with their belief already established, and thus, will either like this book or reject it. However, I believe, wherever you fall on the issue, this is a highly valuable read. It is widely undisputed that Wayne Grudem is highly regarded as a Bible scholar and highly qualified to teach on Bible doctrine, theology, and interpretation. If you disagree with him, he provides a detailed bibliography- go study it for yourself and evaluate its credibility.
In this book, Grudem sets out to unpack the arguments presented and published in support of evangelical feminism, what Grudem defines as “a movement that claims there are no unique leadership roles for men in marriage or in the church.” I can’t cover all of the material in a short review but here are my overall thoughts.
My stance on this issue was formed before I read this book, however, it was mostly based on how I was raised, both in family and in church. I had never had to defend my stance and because I have never felt called into ministry as a woman, I have also never had to feel challenged in accepting my belief of complementarianism.
I found it very helpful to learn how egalitarians approach certain Scripture passages. I can understand both sides of this issue now, and feel more informed on how to defend my belief and what questions to ask of those who disagree.
Grudem’s ultimate premise and conclusion of this book could be summarized by his quote: “I am not saying that all egalitarians are liberals, or are moving toward liberalism. But I am saying that the arguments used by egalitarians actually undermine the authority of Scripture again and again, and in so doing they are leading the church step by step toward liberalism.” I think this was an important quote to add to address others’ concerns that Grudem writes this book without grace or to demonize egalitarianism. Those claims are simply not true.
Even when presenting faulty arguments of well-known professors or scholars, Grudem points out when he knows those people are upholding other conservative theological stances. He does not make generalizations or unfair statements. He also calls on those who oppose egalitarianism to do so with gentleness and compassion. If the ‘grace’ you are looking for in this book means allowing people to do whatever they want because it feels right or sounds good or out of ‘love’ then, no, you won’t find that here. Because that’s not biblical grace. I commend Grudem for publicly standing against that which undermines Scripture. As believers, we are not showing love if we idly stand by while professing Christians are disobeying, twisting, or nullifying the very words of God. This is not a soft book, but it’s not a harsh or demonizing book either.
I would also like to challenge that Grudem is not promoting a ‘fear of liberalism.’ What he is fighting against and urging others to reject is theological liberalism as defined as: “a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives.” If you truly study the methods of interpretation that egalitarians use, you will find that they are, as Grudem argues, close to, if not already, implementing liberal ideology which goes against what the Bible claims for itself- absolute truth and authority. And the urgency in which he writes, is thus, well-grounded because without the ultimate authority and truthfulness of Scripture, what do you have?
One way this book has affected my thinking is realizing the depth and gravity of this issue. It’s not just a simple challenge of ‘Well, if a woman is gifted and called to be a pastor, why can’t she do so?’ When we get the answer to this question wrong, the very authority of Scripture and God’s Word in our lives is at stake. And like Grudem says in every chapter, if we were to apply the methods of interpretation posed by most egalitarians to other parts of Scripture, we would be doing what Scripture specifically warns against- “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it.” (Deut 4:2).
With every argument discussed, Grudem makes convincing objections to the egalitarian interpretations. He provides a solid bibliography and rightfully upholds the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. It is quite disturbing how many egalitarian interpretations are presented as facts without any legitimate sources and with no disclaimer on alternative points of view. When scholars (complementarian and egalitarian alike) are writing books, they have access to a lot of manuscripts and research that we, as readers, do not. We rely on their skills and knowledge to inform us on things we are no qualified to study to the extent that they are. It is irresponsible to present theories or interpretations as facts without sufficient scholarly evidence or disclaimers to the contrary.
As a woman, I support this book and understand that God’s design for women’s roles in marriage and in the church are not based on God viewing men as more capable, more intelligent, or more stable than women, nowhere does Scripture support that, but it is a very reflection of the Trinity itself- the Son, Spirit, and Father having differences in roles but equality in being. God’s view of women is very high and we still have a very valuable role in ministry (after all- how much of the population is made up of women and children who need to be ministered to?!) This is how God designed it and laid it out in Scripture and if we believe that God’s Word is inerrant and authoritative truth, we must accept his design even if it feels uncomfortable. We cannot allow feelings, experiences, church tradition, culture, prophecies outside of Scripture, or circumstances to supersede the authority of the Bible.
He poses two questions we all should ponder- “Is the authority of the Bible really primary for egalitarians? Or is there a deep-seated mentality that actually puts feminism first and the Bible second?”
Whether you identify as complementarian or egalitarian, let this book challenge you.
See more of my reviews at www.shelfreflection.com!
In this book, Grudem sets out to unpack the arguments presented and published in support of evangelical feminism, what Grudem defines as “a movement that claims there are no unique leadership roles for men in marriage or in the church.” I can’t cover all of the material in a short review but here are my overall thoughts.
My stance on this issue was formed before I read this book, however, it was mostly based on how I was raised, both in family and in church. I had never had to defend my stance and because I have never felt called into ministry as a woman, I have also never had to feel challenged in accepting my belief of complementarianism.
I found it very helpful to learn how egalitarians approach certain Scripture passages. I can understand both sides of this issue now, and feel more informed on how to defend my belief and what questions to ask of those who disagree.
Grudem’s ultimate premise and conclusion of this book could be summarized by his quote: “I am not saying that all egalitarians are liberals, or are moving toward liberalism. But I am saying that the arguments used by egalitarians actually undermine the authority of Scripture again and again, and in so doing they are leading the church step by step toward liberalism.” I think this was an important quote to add to address others’ concerns that Grudem writes this book without grace or to demonize egalitarianism. Those claims are simply not true.
Even when presenting faulty arguments of well-known professors or scholars, Grudem points out when he knows those people are upholding other conservative theological stances. He does not make generalizations or unfair statements. He also calls on those who oppose egalitarianism to do so with gentleness and compassion. If the ‘grace’ you are looking for in this book means allowing people to do whatever they want because it feels right or sounds good or out of ‘love’ then, no, you won’t find that here. Because that’s not biblical grace. I commend Grudem for publicly standing against that which undermines Scripture. As believers, we are not showing love if we idly stand by while professing Christians are disobeying, twisting, or nullifying the very words of God. This is not a soft book, but it’s not a harsh or demonizing book either.
I would also like to challenge that Grudem is not promoting a ‘fear of liberalism.’ What he is fighting against and urging others to reject is theological liberalism as defined as: “a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives.” If you truly study the methods of interpretation that egalitarians use, you will find that they are, as Grudem argues, close to, if not already, implementing liberal ideology which goes against what the Bible claims for itself- absolute truth and authority. And the urgency in which he writes, is thus, well-grounded because without the ultimate authority and truthfulness of Scripture, what do you have?
One way this book has affected my thinking is realizing the depth and gravity of this issue. It’s not just a simple challenge of ‘Well, if a woman is gifted and called to be a pastor, why can’t she do so?’ When we get the answer to this question wrong, the very authority of Scripture and God’s Word in our lives is at stake. And like Grudem says in every chapter, if we were to apply the methods of interpretation posed by most egalitarians to other parts of Scripture, we would be doing what Scripture specifically warns against- “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it.” (Deut 4:2).
With every argument discussed, Grudem makes convincing objections to the egalitarian interpretations. He provides a solid bibliography and rightfully upholds the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. It is quite disturbing how many egalitarian interpretations are presented as facts without any legitimate sources and with no disclaimer on alternative points of view. When scholars (complementarian and egalitarian alike) are writing books, they have access to a lot of manuscripts and research that we, as readers, do not. We rely on their skills and knowledge to inform us on things we are no qualified to study to the extent that they are. It is irresponsible to present theories or interpretations as facts without sufficient scholarly evidence or disclaimers to the contrary.
As a woman, I support this book and understand that God’s design for women’s roles in marriage and in the church are not based on God viewing men as more capable, more intelligent, or more stable than women, nowhere does Scripture support that, but it is a very reflection of the Trinity itself- the Son, Spirit, and Father having differences in roles but equality in being. God’s view of women is very high and we still have a very valuable role in ministry (after all- how much of the population is made up of women and children who need to be ministered to?!) This is how God designed it and laid it out in Scripture and if we believe that God’s Word is inerrant and authoritative truth, we must accept his design even if it feels uncomfortable. We cannot allow feelings, experiences, church tradition, culture, prophecies outside of Scripture, or circumstances to supersede the authority of the Bible.
He poses two questions we all should ponder- “Is the authority of the Bible really primary for egalitarians? Or is there a deep-seated mentality that actually puts feminism first and the Bible second?”
Whether you identify as complementarian or egalitarian, let this book challenge you.
See more of my reviews at www.shelfreflection.com!
June 9, 2024
DO THE ARGUMENTS OF EVANGELICAL FEMINISTS LEAD ‘STEP-BY-STEP’ TO LIBERALISM?
Theology professor Wayne Grudem wrote in the Preface to this 2006 book, “This is not a book that addresses all the questions about men’s and women’s roles in the home and the church today… I have already edited one such book ... and … written another one… This book is rather an expression of deep concern about a widespread undermining of the authority of Scripture in the arguments that are frequently used to support evangelical feminism. And it is also a way of posing a question: can a movement that espouses this many ways of undermining the authority of Scripture possibly be right? If God had wanted to teach us an egalitarian position, would he have made it so hard to find in Scripture that it would require this many incorrect methods to discover and defend it? The argument of this book first found expression in a brief chapter in ‘Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth’… I have added much additional material, including significant interaction with … the recent evangelical feminist book ‘Discovering Biblical Equality.’ I have also documented several new developments … in which my argument of a ‘slippery slope’ from evangelical feminism to liberalism has received further confirmation.”
He explains in the Introduction, “When I use the phrase ‘theological liberalism’ I mean a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives. When I speak of ‘evangelical feminism’ I mean a movement that claims there are no unique leadership roles for men in marriage or in the church. According to evangelical feminism… leadership is to be shared between husband and wife … And there are no leadership roles in the church reserved for men, but women as well as men can be pastors and elders and hold any office in the church.” (Pg. 15)
He outlines, “it can be so easy to give in to the pressures of our tolerance-riddled culture … And then the unique message of the gospel … is lost, and Christian churches just follow the culture into liberalism. I believe the same thing is happening today with evangelical feminism. There is tremendous pressure in present-day culture to deny male leadership in the home and the church…. It is much easier to give in and say women can do whatever men can do in the church and in the home. But what about all those Bible verses that talk about male leadership in home and church?... for the past thirty years evangelical feminist scholars have devised thousands of pages of arguments attempting to show that those parts of the Bible don’t apply to us today… or are simply wrong. And so… the authority of the Bible is undermined. When that happens… colleges and churches and denominations start to slide toward liberalism… and, one issue at a time, the church begins to sound more and more like the secular world.” (Pg. 17)
He acknowledges, “In fact, I have a number of egalitarian friends who have not moved one inch toward liberalism in the rest of their doctrinal convictions… If they can hold to an evangelical feminist or egalitarian position without moving toward liberalism themselves, then how can I argue … that evangelical feminism is a new path toward liberalism? I do so because of the nature of the arguments used by evangelical feminists. I realize that a person can adopt one of these arguments and not move any further… But I think the reason they have not moved further … is that they have not followed the implications of the kind of argument they are using… However, others who follow them will do so.” (Pg. 20)
He asserts, “it is unquestionable that theological liberalism leads to the endorsement of women’s ordination… all liberals are egalitarians. There is no theologically liberal denomination or seminary in the United States today that opposes women’s ordination. Liberalism and the approval of women’s ordination go hand in hand.” (Pg. 29)
He states, “The egalitarian and the complementarian positions are not the same in how they treat the texts they emphasize. Egalitarians WRONGLY limit the application of male leadership texts by saying ‘they don’t apply today’ to the very same kinds of situations they applied to when originally written… And then egalitarians wrongly expand the application of equality texts far beyond the kinds of situations they were originally written to address… By contrast, the complementarian position RIGHTLY applies the texts on male leadership to exactly the same kind of situations they applied to when originally written…” (Pg. 84-85)
He asks (and then answers), ‘Why is the issue of women’s roles in church and home different from questions about the End Times or Baptism or Predestination?’ … My response is that this issue is different … in several important ways. Here are the factors to consider: (1) HIDDEN THINGS:… there are some things God has not told us in Scripture… But the role of women in the church is not like this… (2) PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE: I also agree that the Bible makes predictions about the future whose application to future events are uncertain… (3) PRACTICES WITH NO DIRECT COMMANDS:… there are some disputed practices in churches today, concerning which the Bible does not give explicit commands… (4) We cannot ‘not decide’ this issue… We don’t have to figure out how God can be three persons and one God… [or] the timing of the future great tribulation. There is nothing about those issues that forces us to make a decision now. But the role of women in the church is a different matter… either a church has women pastors and elders, or else it doesn’t… every church and every organization has to make some decision or another on this issue… no real ‘middle ground’ is possible.” (Pg. 92-93)
He asks (and again answers) “How can we know when ‘we are not a church’ is a valid reason not to follow a New Testament command and when it is not?... we should obey the command when we are doing the same activity as, or an activity very similar to, what the command is talking about… The principle then is simple: parachurch organizations should follow New Testament commands written to churches when those organizations are engaged in the activities that the command is talking about.” (Pg. 109-110)
He notes, “If a woman finds God’s blessing and anointing when she preaches, then does that mean God is calling her to be a pastor[?]… If we had only the subjective experience alone to go on, it would be impossible to be certain… What a woman perceives as a call from God to a pastoral ministry may be a GENUINE CALL to some other full-time ministry that is approved by Scripture. Many ministries that include Bible teaching are open to women… But I do not believe that God calls a woman to be a pastor or elder where she would … have governing authority over men.” (Pg. 132-133)
He reports, “Several egalitarians claim that the reason Paul wrote that ‘the women should keep silent in the churches’ … was that women were being disorderly and disrupting the church services at Corinth…This theory attempts to make the Corinthian situation a special one, where in fact Paul applies his rule to ‘all the churches.’… Thus his rule cannot be restricted to one local church where there supposedly were problems… this ‘noisy women’ theory either does not make sense of Paul’s solution or else it makes his remedy unfair. First…. If women were being disruptive, Paul would just tell them to act in an orderly way, not to be completely silent… Second, it would be unfair… Paul would be punishing all women for the misdeeds of some.” (Pg. 159, 161)
He acknowledges, “Perhaps the best example of a woman well-trained in knowledge of the Bible is Priscilla… Priscilla knew Scripture well enough to help instruct Apollos… [But] Not even well-educated Priscilla, nor any other well-educated women… who … listened to Paul’s teaching for several years, were allowed to teach to teach men in the public assembly of the church… Paul said, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man’ (1 Tim 2:12). Paul’s reason was certainly not lack of education.” (Pg. 175-176)
He summarizes, “Once evangelical feminism gains control of a church or a denomination, the teaching will tend increasingly toward a denial of anything that is uniquely masculine other than obvious physical differences. The church will be embarrassed by any emphasis on strong and true ‘manhood,’ and will suppress it. This is predictable. It is the next stage on the path toward liberalism.” (Pg.. 225) Later, he adds, “What… is the doctrinal direction to which egalitarianism leads? To an abolition of anything distinctively masculine. An androgynous Adam. A Jesus whose manhood is not important… A God who is both Father and Mother…” (Pg. 234)
He concludes, “I am not saying that all egalitarians are liberals, or are moving toward liberalism. But I am saying that the ARGUMENTS used by egalitarians… undermine the authority of Scripture again and again… Those who adopt an evangelical feminist position ‘buy into’ an interlocking system of interpretation that will relentlessly erode the authority of Scripture in our churches… Will we follow faithfully the path of life-long obedience to all the teachings of the Word of God… Or will we turn aside to evangelical feminism … and down the path to liberalism and an increasing denial of the authority of the Word of God?” (Pg. 262-263)
This book will offend some Christians, but those who agree with Grudem's other books will probably enjoy it.
Theology professor Wayne Grudem wrote in the Preface to this 2006 book, “This is not a book that addresses all the questions about men’s and women’s roles in the home and the church today… I have already edited one such book ... and … written another one… This book is rather an expression of deep concern about a widespread undermining of the authority of Scripture in the arguments that are frequently used to support evangelical feminism. And it is also a way of posing a question: can a movement that espouses this many ways of undermining the authority of Scripture possibly be right? If God had wanted to teach us an egalitarian position, would he have made it so hard to find in Scripture that it would require this many incorrect methods to discover and defend it? The argument of this book first found expression in a brief chapter in ‘Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth’… I have added much additional material, including significant interaction with … the recent evangelical feminist book ‘Discovering Biblical Equality.’ I have also documented several new developments … in which my argument of a ‘slippery slope’ from evangelical feminism to liberalism has received further confirmation.”
He explains in the Introduction, “When I use the phrase ‘theological liberalism’ I mean a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives. When I speak of ‘evangelical feminism’ I mean a movement that claims there are no unique leadership roles for men in marriage or in the church. According to evangelical feminism… leadership is to be shared between husband and wife … And there are no leadership roles in the church reserved for men, but women as well as men can be pastors and elders and hold any office in the church.” (Pg. 15)
He outlines, “it can be so easy to give in to the pressures of our tolerance-riddled culture … And then the unique message of the gospel … is lost, and Christian churches just follow the culture into liberalism. I believe the same thing is happening today with evangelical feminism. There is tremendous pressure in present-day culture to deny male leadership in the home and the church…. It is much easier to give in and say women can do whatever men can do in the church and in the home. But what about all those Bible verses that talk about male leadership in home and church?... for the past thirty years evangelical feminist scholars have devised thousands of pages of arguments attempting to show that those parts of the Bible don’t apply to us today… or are simply wrong. And so… the authority of the Bible is undermined. When that happens… colleges and churches and denominations start to slide toward liberalism… and, one issue at a time, the church begins to sound more and more like the secular world.” (Pg. 17)
He acknowledges, “In fact, I have a number of egalitarian friends who have not moved one inch toward liberalism in the rest of their doctrinal convictions… If they can hold to an evangelical feminist or egalitarian position without moving toward liberalism themselves, then how can I argue … that evangelical feminism is a new path toward liberalism? I do so because of the nature of the arguments used by evangelical feminists. I realize that a person can adopt one of these arguments and not move any further… But I think the reason they have not moved further … is that they have not followed the implications of the kind of argument they are using… However, others who follow them will do so.” (Pg. 20)
He asserts, “it is unquestionable that theological liberalism leads to the endorsement of women’s ordination… all liberals are egalitarians. There is no theologically liberal denomination or seminary in the United States today that opposes women’s ordination. Liberalism and the approval of women’s ordination go hand in hand.” (Pg. 29)
He states, “The egalitarian and the complementarian positions are not the same in how they treat the texts they emphasize. Egalitarians WRONGLY limit the application of male leadership texts by saying ‘they don’t apply today’ to the very same kinds of situations they applied to when originally written… And then egalitarians wrongly expand the application of equality texts far beyond the kinds of situations they were originally written to address… By contrast, the complementarian position RIGHTLY applies the texts on male leadership to exactly the same kind of situations they applied to when originally written…” (Pg. 84-85)
He asks (and then answers), ‘Why is the issue of women’s roles in church and home different from questions about the End Times or Baptism or Predestination?’ … My response is that this issue is different … in several important ways. Here are the factors to consider: (1) HIDDEN THINGS:… there are some things God has not told us in Scripture… But the role of women in the church is not like this… (2) PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE: I also agree that the Bible makes predictions about the future whose application to future events are uncertain… (3) PRACTICES WITH NO DIRECT COMMANDS:… there are some disputed practices in churches today, concerning which the Bible does not give explicit commands… (4) We cannot ‘not decide’ this issue… We don’t have to figure out how God can be three persons and one God… [or] the timing of the future great tribulation. There is nothing about those issues that forces us to make a decision now. But the role of women in the church is a different matter… either a church has women pastors and elders, or else it doesn’t… every church and every organization has to make some decision or another on this issue… no real ‘middle ground’ is possible.” (Pg. 92-93)
He asks (and again answers) “How can we know when ‘we are not a church’ is a valid reason not to follow a New Testament command and when it is not?... we should obey the command when we are doing the same activity as, or an activity very similar to, what the command is talking about… The principle then is simple: parachurch organizations should follow New Testament commands written to churches when those organizations are engaged in the activities that the command is talking about.” (Pg. 109-110)
He notes, “If a woman finds God’s blessing and anointing when she preaches, then does that mean God is calling her to be a pastor[?]… If we had only the subjective experience alone to go on, it would be impossible to be certain… What a woman perceives as a call from God to a pastoral ministry may be a GENUINE CALL to some other full-time ministry that is approved by Scripture. Many ministries that include Bible teaching are open to women… But I do not believe that God calls a woman to be a pastor or elder where she would … have governing authority over men.” (Pg. 132-133)
He reports, “Several egalitarians claim that the reason Paul wrote that ‘the women should keep silent in the churches’ … was that women were being disorderly and disrupting the church services at Corinth…This theory attempts to make the Corinthian situation a special one, where in fact Paul applies his rule to ‘all the churches.’… Thus his rule cannot be restricted to one local church where there supposedly were problems… this ‘noisy women’ theory either does not make sense of Paul’s solution or else it makes his remedy unfair. First…. If women were being disruptive, Paul would just tell them to act in an orderly way, not to be completely silent… Second, it would be unfair… Paul would be punishing all women for the misdeeds of some.” (Pg. 159, 161)
He acknowledges, “Perhaps the best example of a woman well-trained in knowledge of the Bible is Priscilla… Priscilla knew Scripture well enough to help instruct Apollos… [But] Not even well-educated Priscilla, nor any other well-educated women… who … listened to Paul’s teaching for several years, were allowed to teach to teach men in the public assembly of the church… Paul said, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man’ (1 Tim 2:12). Paul’s reason was certainly not lack of education.” (Pg. 175-176)
He summarizes, “Once evangelical feminism gains control of a church or a denomination, the teaching will tend increasingly toward a denial of anything that is uniquely masculine other than obvious physical differences. The church will be embarrassed by any emphasis on strong and true ‘manhood,’ and will suppress it. This is predictable. It is the next stage on the path toward liberalism.” (Pg.. 225) Later, he adds, “What… is the doctrinal direction to which egalitarianism leads? To an abolition of anything distinctively masculine. An androgynous Adam. A Jesus whose manhood is not important… A God who is both Father and Mother…” (Pg. 234)
He concludes, “I am not saying that all egalitarians are liberals, or are moving toward liberalism. But I am saying that the ARGUMENTS used by egalitarians… undermine the authority of Scripture again and again… Those who adopt an evangelical feminist position ‘buy into’ an interlocking system of interpretation that will relentlessly erode the authority of Scripture in our churches… Will we follow faithfully the path of life-long obedience to all the teachings of the Word of God… Or will we turn aside to evangelical feminism … and down the path to liberalism and an increasing denial of the authority of the Word of God?” (Pg. 262-263)
This book will offend some Christians, but those who agree with Grudem's other books will probably enjoy it.
March 1, 2025
Evangelical Feminism - The Issue isn't Primarily Hermeneutics but Biblical Authority
Author Wayne Grudem uses in his title the term “evangelical feminism,” rather than the label preferred by people who hold the position described by that designation, which is “egalitarianism.” I don’t think he does so pejoratively so as to belittle the position. Rather, he is giving precision to a label that is lacking in the somewhat vague alternative term. It is like the person who thinks the term “theistic evolution” more accurately describes the position of someone who would prefer to be called an “evolutionary creationist,” because by shifting the modifier and the noun, the meaning changes significantly, and it does so in the way that the critic discerns is appropriate. In the same way, “egalitarianism” places the emphasis on equality and justice, while “evangelical feminism” suggests that what is doing the work is a cultural movement which, because it is repurposed and baptized with theological language, is thought be somehow sanctified and good.
Grudem defines theological liberalism as “a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives.” In other words, liberalism, in one way or another, places experience and human reason over the Scriptures. So though Scripture might be said to have authority, that authority is first of all vetted by and granted through the filter of human judgment.
And Grudem argues that evangelical feminists treat Scripture just this way: If there is a verse or teaching that cannot pass through that critical filter, it is judged to be one of several things... well actually, one of many things: one, either it is deemed to have been traditionally mistranslated so that it actually means something else; or two, it means what it has been traditionally understood to mean, but its application is limited to the original readers of the letter (and not to us); or three, it is part of a “hermeneutical trajectory” whose final meaning and truth is found beyond New Testament times (and conveniently lands in our present understanding!); or four, we know the passage to be wrong in its teaching because it stands in “obvious contradiction” with other passages and therefore it is not original to the New Testament manuscripts but was added later (even if there is no textual evidence for this).
These are just four of the twenty-five arguments posited by egalitarians that Grudem deals with and argues contribute in their own way to theological liberalism. It was shocking to read just how weak each of them is, even the ones that you would think would be built upon careful scholarly analysis. Here I am thinking of the arguments that “head” in, for example, Ephesians 5:22 means only “source” and not “authority”; and that the Greek word in 1 Timothy 2:15 traditionally translated “exercise authority” does not mean that, but means something more along the lines of involving an abuse of authority. But Grudem argues that though those making such arguments give footnotes to academic literature, when the citations are actually looked up, they don’t at all support the conclusions they are said to support. And then other egalitarian authors just repeat those arguments, assuming that they are sound because they come with footnotes!
Grudem notes:
So despite claims to the contrary, the complementarian/egalitarian disagreement isn't really at the level of hermeneutics, but really centres on what one is going to do with Biblical authority. Hermeneutical disagreements should produce robust Biblical arguments on both sides, but from what I’m reading in Grudem’s book, that is just not the case. The egalitarian position seems to be an a priori conclusion in search of justification – Biblical or otherwise. This sounds dangerously like liberalism, which by definition also begins with its conclusions, and then either tortures or dismisses Scripture to justify them.
But what is the practical outworking of this "new path to liberalism?" What does it look like? In the final section of the book - "Where is Evangelical Feminism Taking Us?" - Grudem argues that the arguments used by egalitarians don't find their terminal point with women pastors, but lead to three (unforeseen?) things: 1, the loss of any understanding of what Biblical masculinity even looks like; 2, preferring to speak of God as "Mother" rather than "Father;" and 3, ultimately, the "final step" on the road to liberalism - the full acceptance of homosexuality and all things LGBTQ+ as being compatible with Christianity.
Now, this book was published in 2006, and though he describes earlier liberal denominations that had all progressed from a position of egalitarianism to eventually one of full acceptance of homosexuality, he only describes rumblings in that direction in more conservative denominations like the Christian Reformed Church, which had just begun ordaining women a decade earlier, in 1995. But today, two decades later, this denomination is in the throes of a complete civil war over LGBTQ acceptance.
So it seems reasonable to conclude that the view of the Bible that egalitarians seem to hold is the same one that is being used more recently to support acceptance of homosexuality in and by the church. Well, the inference certainly is strong, but we don't have to rely merely on inference to come to that conclusion. Grudem describes one Roy Clements, who until his homosexuality was made known in 1999 when he left his wife for another gay man, was thought to be the next John Stott in terms of his influence among evangelicals in the UK. This is what he has said:
In conclusion, it seems that if a straight line can be drawn from a position arguing for the ordination of women, to one arguing for full LGBTQ acceptance in the church (and apparently it can), and if LGBTQ acceptance is the hallmark of liberal Christianity (and it certainly is), then it is safe to conclude that history has sadly borne out his contention that evangelical feminism is indeed a new path to liberalism.
Author Wayne Grudem uses in his title the term “evangelical feminism,” rather than the label preferred by people who hold the position described by that designation, which is “egalitarianism.” I don’t think he does so pejoratively so as to belittle the position. Rather, he is giving precision to a label that is lacking in the somewhat vague alternative term. It is like the person who thinks the term “theistic evolution” more accurately describes the position of someone who would prefer to be called an “evolutionary creationist,” because by shifting the modifier and the noun, the meaning changes significantly, and it does so in the way that the critic discerns is appropriate. In the same way, “egalitarianism” places the emphasis on equality and justice, while “evangelical feminism” suggests that what is doing the work is a cultural movement which, because it is repurposed and baptized with theological language, is thought be somehow sanctified and good.
Grudem defines theological liberalism as “a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives.” In other words, liberalism, in one way or another, places experience and human reason over the Scriptures. So though Scripture might be said to have authority, that authority is first of all vetted by and granted through the filter of human judgment.
And Grudem argues that evangelical feminists treat Scripture just this way: If there is a verse or teaching that cannot pass through that critical filter, it is judged to be one of several things... well actually, one of many things: one, either it is deemed to have been traditionally mistranslated so that it actually means something else; or two, it means what it has been traditionally understood to mean, but its application is limited to the original readers of the letter (and not to us); or three, it is part of a “hermeneutical trajectory” whose final meaning and truth is found beyond New Testament times (and conveniently lands in our present understanding!); or four, we know the passage to be wrong in its teaching because it stands in “obvious contradiction” with other passages and therefore it is not original to the New Testament manuscripts but was added later (even if there is no textual evidence for this).
These are just four of the twenty-five arguments posited by egalitarians that Grudem deals with and argues contribute in their own way to theological liberalism. It was shocking to read just how weak each of them is, even the ones that you would think would be built upon careful scholarly analysis. Here I am thinking of the arguments that “head” in, for example, Ephesians 5:22 means only “source” and not “authority”; and that the Greek word in 1 Timothy 2:15 traditionally translated “exercise authority” does not mean that, but means something more along the lines of involving an abuse of authority. But Grudem argues that though those making such arguments give footnotes to academic literature, when the citations are actually looked up, they don’t at all support the conclusions they are said to support. And then other egalitarian authors just repeat those arguments, assuming that they are sound because they come with footnotes!
Grudem notes:
"Something should strike us as deeply troubling about such a movement. Is the authority of the Bible really primary for egalitarians? Or is there a deep-seated mentality that actually puts feminism first and the Bible second? The more I have read these egalitarian arguments, the more I have found myself wondering this: Are these writers actually operating from a deep conviction that says, 'I know that egalitarianism is right, now let me see if I can find any ways to support it from the Bible. If one approach does not work, I'll try another, and if twenty-five approaches do not work, I will look for a twenty-sixth, because the one thing I cannot accept is that egalitarianism is wrong'?
I cannot say for sure. But I can think of no other viewpoint or movement within the whole history of the Christian church (except theological liberalism itself) that has generated so many novel and ultimately incorrect ways of interpreting the Bible."
So despite claims to the contrary, the complementarian/egalitarian disagreement isn't really at the level of hermeneutics, but really centres on what one is going to do with Biblical authority. Hermeneutical disagreements should produce robust Biblical arguments on both sides, but from what I’m reading in Grudem’s book, that is just not the case. The egalitarian position seems to be an a priori conclusion in search of justification – Biblical or otherwise. This sounds dangerously like liberalism, which by definition also begins with its conclusions, and then either tortures or dismisses Scripture to justify them.
But what is the practical outworking of this "new path to liberalism?" What does it look like? In the final section of the book - "Where is Evangelical Feminism Taking Us?" - Grudem argues that the arguments used by egalitarians don't find their terminal point with women pastors, but lead to three (unforeseen?) things: 1, the loss of any understanding of what Biblical masculinity even looks like; 2, preferring to speak of God as "Mother" rather than "Father;" and 3, ultimately, the "final step" on the road to liberalism - the full acceptance of homosexuality and all things LGBTQ+ as being compatible with Christianity.
Now, this book was published in 2006, and though he describes earlier liberal denominations that had all progressed from a position of egalitarianism to eventually one of full acceptance of homosexuality, he only describes rumblings in that direction in more conservative denominations like the Christian Reformed Church, which had just begun ordaining women a decade earlier, in 1995. But today, two decades later, this denomination is in the throes of a complete civil war over LGBTQ acceptance.
So it seems reasonable to conclude that the view of the Bible that egalitarians seem to hold is the same one that is being used more recently to support acceptance of homosexuality in and by the church. Well, the inference certainly is strong, but we don't have to rely merely on inference to come to that conclusion. Grudem describes one Roy Clements, who until his homosexuality was made known in 1999 when he left his wife for another gay man, was thought to be the next John Stott in terms of his influence among evangelicals in the UK. This is what he has said:
"In the wake of the secular feminist movement, women have found a new confidence to claim a role for themselves within the church. They have developed a hermeneutic to deal with the biblical texts which had been used to deny them that role in the past.... Gay Christians are using exactly the same kind of hermeneutic tools to challenge tradition in regard to homosexuality."
In conclusion, it seems that if a straight line can be drawn from a position arguing for the ordination of women, to one arguing for full LGBTQ acceptance in the church (and apparently it can), and if LGBTQ acceptance is the hallmark of liberal Christianity (and it certainly is), then it is safe to conclude that history has sadly borne out his contention that evangelical feminism is indeed a new path to liberalism.
June 2, 2018
As the subtitle suggests, Grudem sees egalitarianism as the first step down the slope to theological liberalism. He defines theological liberalism as a rejection of the authority of scripture, and argues that evangelical egalitarians must either reject or redefine Scripture to defend their positions. Grudem believes that egalitarians start with feminism and reinterpret Scripture in light of the rampant feminism in today’s culture.
If egalitarianism inevitably leads to theological liberalism, then Grudem’s version of inerrancy seems to lead to fundamentalism. And if you find the latter to be an unfair assumption, then maybe the former is as well. He leaves little room for other interpretations of scripture, and defines theological liberalism so broadly that he includes belief in Genesis 1 as a literary device as an equal offense to rejection of Jesus as the only way to God. I find lumping so many doctrines into one demonized category to be unfair.
I thought part 3 was the best part of the book—a look at scripture and interpretations of the difficult passages. Grudem acknowledges that Priscilla helped instruct Apollos, but I was disappointed that he did not explain whether or not she was in line with 1 Timothy 2:12. His reliance on the eternal functional subordination of the Son is troubling, and he doesn’t adequately acknowledge that his appeal to this idea is not shared by a majority of his complementarian companions.
Overall, I found Grudem to be a little frantic over liberalism. I would like to read something complementarian that has more of an emphasis on scriptural interpretation and less propaganda against liberalism. I believe he wrote another book focused that way, and I may check it out.
If egalitarianism inevitably leads to theological liberalism, then Grudem’s version of inerrancy seems to lead to fundamentalism. And if you find the latter to be an unfair assumption, then maybe the former is as well. He leaves little room for other interpretations of scripture, and defines theological liberalism so broadly that he includes belief in Genesis 1 as a literary device as an equal offense to rejection of Jesus as the only way to God. I find lumping so many doctrines into one demonized category to be unfair.
I thought part 3 was the best part of the book—a look at scripture and interpretations of the difficult passages. Grudem acknowledges that Priscilla helped instruct Apollos, but I was disappointed that he did not explain whether or not she was in line with 1 Timothy 2:12. His reliance on the eternal functional subordination of the Son is troubling, and he doesn’t adequately acknowledge that his appeal to this idea is not shared by a majority of his complementarian companions.
Overall, I found Grudem to be a little frantic over liberalism. I would like to read something complementarian that has more of an emphasis on scriptural interpretation and less propaganda against liberalism. I believe he wrote another book focused that way, and I may check it out.
February 7, 2024
I loved Wayne Grudem's books on theology, but this one was kinda iffy for me. While it explained the egalitarian point of view decently well, I know many people with this view who aren't on the path to liberalism. Instead of constantly saying, "this is the path," I would have loved more examples of actual people, quotes from both sides, and more simple terms than big terms and words and overly long explanations that felt more of a rant.
I don't know... I guess I was gearing up for the history of the church and more "the average Joe can read this without going over their head." It just felt different from his other books and I wasn't a huge fan.
I appreciated the short chapters though and being able to flip right to questions I had, like what about women who feel called to preach? And go straight to that section.
And not that this read wasn't helpful... it just wasn't what I expected.
I don't know... I guess I was gearing up for the history of the church and more "the average Joe can read this without going over their head." It just felt different from his other books and I wasn't a huge fan.
I appreciated the short chapters though and being able to flip right to questions I had, like what about women who feel called to preach? And go straight to that section.
And not that this read wasn't helpful... it just wasn't what I expected.
February 25, 2018
Negatives:
- Thought the chapter on parachurch and seminaries was pretty weak
- Still not sure about the way to connect complementarity and trinitarianism. Mainly because I see guys who are complementarian also critiquing Grudem and saying he's moving too close to arianism. Need to read more in this area but at this stage I'm totally fine with taking the 1 Corinthians 11 passage as referring to the economic trinity (though Grudem would argue that this is insufficient).
Positives:
- Everything else. This was a very good book. I need to read some of his more lengthy stuff on this topic.
- Thought the chapter on parachurch and seminaries was pretty weak
- Still not sure about the way to connect complementarity and trinitarianism. Mainly because I see guys who are complementarian also critiquing Grudem and saying he's moving too close to arianism. Need to read more in this area but at this stage I'm totally fine with taking the 1 Corinthians 11 passage as referring to the economic trinity (though Grudem would argue that this is insufficient).
Positives:
- Everything else. This was a very good book. I need to read some of his more lengthy stuff on this topic.
March 26, 2021
Informative, but definitely more of an academic study than I was expecting. The arguments made are strong, but there is rarely a presentation of the theoretical response of the other side. I recognize that there cannot be a true back-and-forth but WG paints a few issues as more black-and-white than I thought they should be. I felt equipped with information, but not wooed to it.
August 9, 2016
A lightening rod book. Whatever you believe about evangelical feminism will likely determine your viewpoint on this book.
Our age is an age of equality of the sexes. No thinking person would deny that, would they? There is no doubt in many ways women are equal to, and in some ways superior to men. Yet, for one who takes the Bible and sober exegesis seriously, there are areas in which men do have authority over women. Authority does not imply superiority; it simply means someone is in charge to make decisions. Wayne Grudem has again dared to touch this “third rail” in evangelical theology, that of evangelical feminism. I found his book a bold and sobering challenge to evangelical feminists. Indeed, I suspect many of them will be angered at his words. I can hope that some might be persuaded by them to think differently. It is also a bold reminder for conservatives of the integrity of Scriptures and for sound interpretation of the same.
In Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? Grudem begins with a brief history of a connection between Liberalism and women’s ordination in the church. He then takes 15 arguments that evangelical feminists use to show how such arguments ultimately undermine the authority of God’s Word. While I would not come to every conclusion Grudem would, each point is worthy of contemplation. Then in several chapters he deals with views of feminists based on unsubstantiated claims of passages of Scripture. He then concludes that evangelical feminism is taking Christianity far away from its roots in the Scripture to an unsubstantiated (albeit very popular) conclusion, and ultimately to the denial of the World of God. I am glad that he gives names of persons, organizations and educational facilities that are greatly influenced by this movement (for example, chapter 35). I am also glad that he challenges the evangelical feminists.
Let me conclude with a personal testimony. In 1989, I purchased and read through Gordon Fee’s commentary on First Corinthians in the NICNT series. I had always believed the NICNT series to be a strongly conservative one, so I bought Fee’s commentary, assuming that his scholarship would be equally conservative. I knew of Fee’s pentecostal persuasion (p. xi), but being a cessationist, I plowed ahead with the commentary. I found many helpful items in the work, but a few things challenged me. First, when I read Fee on 1 Corinthians 11, it was the first time I had been exposed to the idea that kephale (head) might have meant “source,” not “authority.” Fee footnoted Grudem and suggested that Grudem was wrong. Now as a younger minister, I assumed that Fee had a point to be made here. Yet further on, in his explanation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 as an interpolation (Fee, p. 705), made me stop to think. Does it make sense that a passage with absolutely no manuscript support could have been inserted by accident? It was at this point that I began to ponder Fee’s presuppositions.
My point is this: while Fee has many helpful things to say, it seems that many can be influenced by his “scholarly research” away from sound exegetical principles of the Word. I agree with Grudem: this approach undermines the authority of the Bible! And even if it isn’t an attempt towards liberalism, it does become a watershed issue that begins to slant the table in that direction. As for me, I do not know if every evangelical feminist intends to make a step toward liberalism. Yet, these items do begin to tilt the watershed table in that direction.
I highly recommend Grudem’s book. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, I hope you will not dismiss them out of hand. Take time to think.
Our age is an age of equality of the sexes. No thinking person would deny that, would they? There is no doubt in many ways women are equal to, and in some ways superior to men. Yet, for one who takes the Bible and sober exegesis seriously, there are areas in which men do have authority over women. Authority does not imply superiority; it simply means someone is in charge to make decisions. Wayne Grudem has again dared to touch this “third rail” in evangelical theology, that of evangelical feminism. I found his book a bold and sobering challenge to evangelical feminists. Indeed, I suspect many of them will be angered at his words. I can hope that some might be persuaded by them to think differently. It is also a bold reminder for conservatives of the integrity of Scriptures and for sound interpretation of the same.
In Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? Grudem begins with a brief history of a connection between Liberalism and women’s ordination in the church. He then takes 15 arguments that evangelical feminists use to show how such arguments ultimately undermine the authority of God’s Word. While I would not come to every conclusion Grudem would, each point is worthy of contemplation. Then in several chapters he deals with views of feminists based on unsubstantiated claims of passages of Scripture. He then concludes that evangelical feminism is taking Christianity far away from its roots in the Scripture to an unsubstantiated (albeit very popular) conclusion, and ultimately to the denial of the World of God. I am glad that he gives names of persons, organizations and educational facilities that are greatly influenced by this movement (for example, chapter 35). I am also glad that he challenges the evangelical feminists.
Let me conclude with a personal testimony. In 1989, I purchased and read through Gordon Fee’s commentary on First Corinthians in the NICNT series. I had always believed the NICNT series to be a strongly conservative one, so I bought Fee’s commentary, assuming that his scholarship would be equally conservative. I knew of Fee’s pentecostal persuasion (p. xi), but being a cessationist, I plowed ahead with the commentary. I found many helpful items in the work, but a few things challenged me. First, when I read Fee on 1 Corinthians 11, it was the first time I had been exposed to the idea that kephale (head) might have meant “source,” not “authority.” Fee footnoted Grudem and suggested that Grudem was wrong. Now as a younger minister, I assumed that Fee had a point to be made here. Yet further on, in his explanation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 as an interpolation (Fee, p. 705), made me stop to think. Does it make sense that a passage with absolutely no manuscript support could have been inserted by accident? It was at this point that I began to ponder Fee’s presuppositions.
My point is this: while Fee has many helpful things to say, it seems that many can be influenced by his “scholarly research” away from sound exegetical principles of the Word. I agree with Grudem: this approach undermines the authority of the Bible! And even if it isn’t an attempt towards liberalism, it does become a watershed issue that begins to slant the table in that direction. As for me, I do not know if every evangelical feminist intends to make a step toward liberalism. Yet, these items do begin to tilt the watershed table in that direction.
I highly recommend Grudem’s book. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, I hope you will not dismiss them out of hand. Take time to think.
August 13, 2015
This book will be a bit like marmite, some will love it, others will hate it. I am not sure I enjoyed the writing style, in that it is made up of multiple short chapters. It is not claiming to provide the kind of objective critique which some would want. It is answering arguments that have been used to defend a theological position, in such a way as to show how this position, evangelical egalitarianism, is in fact a liberalising trend within evangelicalism. It is not claiming that this is intentional, but that this is a consequence of the way in which scripture is treated, to draw these conclusions. Grudem argues, throughout, that in order to make arguments in support of the egalitarian position, the authority of scripture is undermined or challenged. Once people distrust the authority of scripture, or try to conform it to current social mores, the compromise has already happened (or begun), which will eventually appear as theological liberalism.
The book is advocating a slippery slope argument, which many reject out of hand as a logical fallacy. However, a slippery slope argument can be legitimate, if it is true. Some things, do lead to other things. Ideas, do have consequences, and these are not always intended. This book will probably irritate opponents, because Grudem does not pretend to be an objective observer of trends, but is actively defending his viewpoint. However, he answers the critics of complementarian theology well, and demonstrates his point. Evangelical feminists or egalitarians, do not seem to realise that their arguments for often sound like, "Hath God really said...?" at their base.
My biggest criticism of Grudem's work is that his pneumatology, is such that there is room for a lot of subjectivism in understanding the word of God. He cites several prominent leaders from the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements, who have already, to some extent agreed that it is legitimate to hear God speaking, apart from His written word, so in some ways, it is inevitable that there will be people, within this movement who pit "prophetic utterances" against, the more sure word of prophecy, and come down on the wrong side. In Charismatic and Pentecostal theology, it can be hard to reject someone's claim to having heard from God, about a matter, on their own, or another's behalf.
Grudem is careful to state, throughout, that he does not deny women's gifting, or ability, it is a matter of when and how women's gifts and abilities are to be appropriately administered within the church under Biblical authority. I particularly found his rehearsing of the "trajectory" arguments helpful. I cannot understand why such learned men and women, really cannot see how presumptuous it is to believe that we know that the author really meant for us only to do a particular thing, in a particular way, for a period of time, until such time as we all became more enlightened, in the future. This makes God's word seem very plastic. In addition, it was good to see Grudem highlight the lack of credible evidence used to support certain assumptions about the local church contexts, into which certain epistles were written, which we now (apparently)need not heed, because they don't apply to us.
Another weakness of the book is that it seems as though it could have done to be published as one volume with another book "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" which is often referenced.
Overall, this was helpful.
The book is advocating a slippery slope argument, which many reject out of hand as a logical fallacy. However, a slippery slope argument can be legitimate, if it is true. Some things, do lead to other things. Ideas, do have consequences, and these are not always intended. This book will probably irritate opponents, because Grudem does not pretend to be an objective observer of trends, but is actively defending his viewpoint. However, he answers the critics of complementarian theology well, and demonstrates his point. Evangelical feminists or egalitarians, do not seem to realise that their arguments for often sound like, "Hath God really said...?" at their base.
My biggest criticism of Grudem's work is that his pneumatology, is such that there is room for a lot of subjectivism in understanding the word of God. He cites several prominent leaders from the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements, who have already, to some extent agreed that it is legitimate to hear God speaking, apart from His written word, so in some ways, it is inevitable that there will be people, within this movement who pit "prophetic utterances" against, the more sure word of prophecy, and come down on the wrong side. In Charismatic and Pentecostal theology, it can be hard to reject someone's claim to having heard from God, about a matter, on their own, or another's behalf.
Grudem is careful to state, throughout, that he does not deny women's gifting, or ability, it is a matter of when and how women's gifts and abilities are to be appropriately administered within the church under Biblical authority. I particularly found his rehearsing of the "trajectory" arguments helpful. I cannot understand why such learned men and women, really cannot see how presumptuous it is to believe that we know that the author really meant for us only to do a particular thing, in a particular way, for a period of time, until such time as we all became more enlightened, in the future. This makes God's word seem very plastic. In addition, it was good to see Grudem highlight the lack of credible evidence used to support certain assumptions about the local church contexts, into which certain epistles were written, which we now (apparently)need not heed, because they don't apply to us.
Another weakness of the book is that it seems as though it could have done to be published as one volume with another book "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" which is often referenced.
Overall, this was helpful.
July 18, 2007
Grudem's title is ironic once you have read his book. He seeks to catalog instances where theological egalitarianism has established beachheads within institutional evangelicalism, and that such beachheads tend inevitably toward theological liberalism.
The irony is this: when you examine his evidence for "beachheads" you discover that this is not the correct metaphor for the presence of egalitarianism within broadly evangelical Protestantism. "Well defended and deeply defended encampments" is a better picture.
And, tending toward liberalism? Grudem's evidence estabilishes that egalitarianism and theological liberalism are essentially identical.
He might as well have written a book entitled "Monsoons: A Path Toward Getting Wet?"
The irony is this: when you examine his evidence for "beachheads" you discover that this is not the correct metaphor for the presence of egalitarianism within broadly evangelical Protestantism. "Well defended and deeply defended encampments" is a better picture.
And, tending toward liberalism? Grudem's evidence estabilishes that egalitarianism and theological liberalism are essentially identical.
He might as well have written a book entitled "Monsoons: A Path Toward Getting Wet?"
March 4, 2016
A fine book indeed. Grudem isn't arguing that all who believe that women shouldn't be pastors are in fact liberals; rather, only that the "arguments used by egalitarians actually undermine the authority of Scripture again and again, and in so doing they are leading the church step by step toward liberalism." Depending on which side of the debate you fall, Grudem has researched this book incredibly well, and interacts with a lot of the major contributors of egalitarian thought. But for Grudem, the issue isn't male headship or if women can be pastors per se; the issue is whether or not God's word is authoritative for one's life.
December 6, 2013
This was a good read and quite informative.
In this book, Grudem mostly addresses the egalitarian position and discusses how it leads to liberalism - not upholding the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.
This work is quite easy to understand and draws from various sources and critiques different evangelical feminist positions. Also, lending to its understandability are the short chapters in the books.
In this book, Grudem mostly addresses the egalitarian position and discusses how it leads to liberalism - not upholding the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.
This work is quite easy to understand and draws from various sources and critiques different evangelical feminist positions. Also, lending to its understandability are the short chapters in the books.
September 8, 2016
This might be a bit tedious and detailed for the casual reader, but is meant to be a scholarly and fair rebuttal of the various arguments for egalitarianism. He seems fair to the opposing viewpoints while still sounding the alarm that the compromise of Scripture in this area will lead to further compromise in other areas, specifically in the area of homosexually, which 10 years after publication is sadly already the case.
January 24, 2016
Very good read. Concise. Biblical. Challenged my thinking and position.
Very good read. Challenging at times. Thought provoking book. Will give it another read through. Evangelical liberalism has a trajectory that will cause the ministry of church to have defend the authority and authenticity of the Word of God.
Very good read. Challenging at times. Thought provoking book. Will give it another read through. Evangelical liberalism has a trajectory that will cause the ministry of church to have defend the authority and authenticity of the Word of God.
August 28, 2013
A devastating critique of "evangelical feminism," albeit from a non-sacramental free church perspective.
April 26, 2023
Un bon survol des objections aux arguments égalitariens. Bien sûr cela n'est pas aussi approfondi que d'autres ouvrages mais il permet de poser des bases
April 2, 2017
- Books: Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth by Grudem
- Books: Francis Schaeffer's "The Great Evangelical Disaster" has a chapter "The Feminist Subversion"
- Books: Discovering Biblical Equality by Ron Pierce and Rebecca Merrill
- Egalitarianism (Evangelical Feminism) seeks to remove any leadership role for men (11); undermines Scripture to make to say differently; God is a mother (16-17); and equalize /o distinction and eliminate boundaries (18)
- Books: Francis Schaeffer's "The Great Evangelical Disaster" has a chapter "The Feminist Subversion"
- Books: Discovering Biblical Equality by Ron Pierce and Rebecca Merrill
- Egalitarianism (Evangelical Feminism) seeks to remove any leadership role for men (11); undermines Scripture to make to say differently; God is a mother (16-17); and equalize /o distinction and eliminate boundaries (18)
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews