A review of this book by Sarah Sumner is long overdue. I have hesitated in doing this even now. But with all the talk of the complementarian-egalitarian conflict resulting from the Together For the Gospel conference and statement, this seems like a good time.
At first glace one might think “This must be a well-written and well-argued position”. Afterall, it has a forward by Phillip Johnson, and blurbs by Dallas Willard, Harold O.J. Brown and such an evangelical legend as Carl Henry for Pete’s sake.
I was given my copy by a person who wanted to justify her theological shift and practice. I guess sometimes we see what we want to see, because I don’t think this book delivered the goods. My copy has tons of red ink. I am tempted to say that she benefitted from evangelical affirmative action because the scholarship found in this book is questionable to say the least. I could not disagree more with the blurbs on the back or the content within the binding.
What’s wrong? It is not (just) that I disagree with her. Her exegetical work is weak. Very weak. She seems ignorant of basic things: using the historical-grammatical method to develop the original meaning to the original audience and then make the adjustments for changes in time, circumstance and audience. She blanketly applies instructions to a young pastor to all Christians. She is focused more on the ‘meaning of a word’ than the grammer and how it is used in the context. For instance, “head’ is used earlier in Ephesians in the context of authority, not source. She must provide a solid reason for the meaning to change in a similar context (since submission is a matter of authority, not source). She does not offer a compelling rationale.
She also seems ignorant of the basic Reformational principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, using the clear texts to interpret the unclear texts. And just as frustrating is her refusal to apply “good and necessary inference”. Actually, that is quite convenient to her case because she can write that a man is never commanded to lead his wife. That would be a good and necessary inference of both the command to the wife to submit to her husband, and more importantly, the husband imaging Jesus who surely leads His bride, the Church.
She also relies heavily on strawpeople (I’ll be gender neutral for a moment). She does not paint complementarians fairly, but they come off sounding like ignorant, controlling beasts. She uses extreme arguments: “unless we believe that all women are subject to the authority of all men.” The text flatly denies such a contention, and all complementarians I know (including me) deny such a contention. A woman/wife is to be subject to her own man/husband.
All in all, I found this to be a poorly researched, poorly reasoned and poorly argued book that somehow tries to be neither complementarian nor feminist. In fact, it misrepresents the teaching of Scripture. I don’t know her heart, but I do know the human tendency to argue in such a way as to justify our own practice. This is a book to justify the Willowcreek Association’s position on women in pastoral ministry, from which she benefitted. But Men and Women in the Church does the Body a disservice.
Hi!
I’d like to suggest that you write a review on “Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women” by George and Dora Winston. I think you might appreciate their respect for the historical-grammatical approach, their respect, application and understanding of hermeneutics and the thorough exegeitical work that gave birth to a biblical theology of women in all spheres of authority (state, workplace, nature, Church, family and marriage.
J. Mel
I may have to look for that. I just bought the book by J. Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt, Women’s Ministry in the Local Church. There should be a review eventually. I MIGHT get to it during this study leave, but I’m not reading as much as I thought.
I suggest you also look at Discovering Biblical Equality. Excellent scholarship there.
The subtitle and reviews suggest that Discovering Biblical Equality:Complementarity without Hierarchy would not be a book I would agree with.
I affirm equality- both are made as God’s image. I affirm distictions in gender and role.
Galatians 3:26-28 does not deal a devastating blow to complementarianism. And as one Amazon reader who loved the book admitted, “Linda Belleville’s chapter on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is helpful at points, but doesn’t fully deal with all the issues raised by Kostenberger et al.”
The arguement that complementarianism treats women as “other” and less than fully human is, in my estimation, preposterous strawman rhetoric.
And, contrary to the argumentation of this book, good complementarians (and there are bad ones) are biblical ones, so are reasoning is from creation, not the Fall, as is often falsely opposed. So, if you can’t understand the arguments of guys like Piper, Grudem & Duncan, I’m not sure it is good scholarship.
I think I’ve read enough on the issue that I’m not going to hear anything new under the sun on this issue. Sorry to disagree with you.
[…] of his wife, Piper argues, the husband should guide, provide and protect his wife and family. Sarah Sumner’s book, claiming to interact with Piper and Grudem, acts like this section of Piper’s book […]