The Bible and Women: How Silly Can It Get?
May 14th, 2009 by John
When God wants to do something great in the world through a man, God first finds a woman. Think about it. It was the creative, dangerous act of Moses’ mother that saved him from genocide and made it possible for him to grow and become Israel’s liberator-in-chief under God. It was Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi and risk in marrying Boaz that led to the birth of Obed, then Jesse and then David. It was Hannah’s agonizing pleas to God that provoked God “to remember” her and Samuel was born-Samuel the great transitional prophet during Israel’s darkest times. Timothy had a wonderful mother, Eunice, and his grandmother, Lois. And, of course, when God wanted the Man Jesus born, God chose a virgin named Mary.
There would be no Francis of Assisi without Pica Bourlemont; no Martin Luther without Margarethe Ludher; no John and Charles Wesley without Susanna. Hey, there wouldn’t be a you without a mother somewhere.
It is sad that a persistent view of women’s essential inferiority exists in the church under the guise of good exegetical studies. Those who hold such a view adamantly deny that they view women as “inferior.” No, they insist, we simply believe “equal in essence, but unequal in role/function.” What makes a woman, then, disqualified for the role? Her essential maleness? No, that’s silly. What disqualifies her is her essential femaleness. She is too inferior to be an elder, a pastor, a teacher over men. Women of equal character, equal gifting and equal abilities with similarly qualified men cannot do what those men do in the persisting view. Why? I ask, why?
Beneath this view is an assault on the Trinity itself. It’s called the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Equal. I repeat, equal, but subordinate. Equal, but subordinate. Does something just not compute there? Ah, say those who persist in this heresy, it’s a mystery. No, it’s pure fantasy.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Woman, how divine your mission
Here upon our natal sod!
Keep, oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
“What Rules The World” third stanza (1865)
-William Ross Wallace
Rock on, William!
Ken,
Is this the “Braveheart” William Wallace? Whoa.
Wow, what a sharp mind! I never saw the connection.
No, this William Wallace was an American Poet from the 19th century.
I find it sadly ironic that the idea hierarchy within the Trinity is a fairly new doctrine created to support complementarianism. I agree that it is an extreme assault on the nature of the Trinity. Of course it is strongly upheld by Grudem et al, but also by other well-known and highly respected theologians such as BWIII.
I’m not typically a self-linker, but you might be interested in a couple of posts that I wrote on this topic…
Neo-Orthodox?
Neo-Orthodox II
Yes. So sad that the complementarian position is anchored in an unnecessary trinitarian view. On this see Kevin Giles chapter “” in Discovering Biblical Equality. As for the logic (or lack thereof) on the equal in being, unequal in role, see Rebecca Groothuis’ “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role” in the aforementioned.
the hidden assault on the creedal doctrine of the Trinity is the “elephant in the room” of modern complementarians.
It grieves me so much that men I respect like Don Carson and John Piper subscribe to this pernicious doctrine.
The case for complementarian vs egalitarian can be argued, and godly, biblically literate Christians can come to differing views. That I can cope with. But to have to ground their case in a re-interpretation of the Trinity really scares me – because they are so vehement to defend their cause (the permanent, and eternal subordination of women) that they can’t see what they are doing with a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.