A Comment on Complementarianism

I received a comment on Complementarianism and posted a response. If this topic is of interest to you, please read the post and the comments by clicking (here).

Here is my response - which may seem a bit out of context unless you read the post I am addressing:

Thanks for responding personally. I am still a bit new to the blogosphere and may need to make some adjustments to the settings so as to better moderate any Anonymous postings. Often times, not all the time, such anonymous postings are not meant to do anything but provoke and criticize without allowing any real engagement in the issue. I appreciate that your intentions are not as such.

With regard to your post, I do not see that I have a problem with my assertion that gender roles are “not an issue of capability but of responsibility.” Rather, I see that you have a couple of problems.First, whether or not my statement is in compliance with Wayne Grudem is not the issue. The issue is what does the Word of God say? Second, with that much said, the problem with your citing Grudem is that you did so out of context, or rather with not in enough context to grasp the basic gist of what he was addressing.

Here is the full quote:“God gave men, in general, a disposition that is better suited to teaching and governing in the church, a disposition that inclines more to the rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, in general, a disposition that inclines more toward a relational, nurturing emphasis that places a higher value on unity and community in the church (v14)”

Without getting into great detail at this time (I would like to go home and spend the evening with my family), Mr. Grudem did not say that women were incapable or mentally limited in their abilities, even as it comes to teaching, leadership in the church and the analysis of doctrine. I see that you took Grudem out of context and then came to some illogical conclusions. A disposition, as Grudem uses the word, is not about ability, but how one is inclined to go about accomplishing a particular task. He is stating that in general a man’s disposition is better suited than a woman’s for teaching and leading the church. Men, when following the mandates of the Lord, do tend to be better disciplinarians, better teachers and better systematizers of doctrinal truth. It is interesting that with some 2000 years of church history, the great theological thinkers have been men. And before anyone says that is only because men have suppressed women, women of all ages have fought against this and today, in an age where women have the best opportunity to show forth doctrinal prowess, there is yet no true woman theologian who ranks with the likes of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Spring, Ryle, Hodge, Warfield, or Lloyd-Jones. Even in the contemporary setting no true woman theologian has been noted along with R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur or John Piper. This is not because women are mentally incapable of knowing and understanding such truth, but in the context of communicating and administering this truth, women’s dispositions are not geared like men. In general, a godly woman’s communication of truth, while it may be theologically accurate, does not come across with same authority as that of godly man. Why? Because God ordained it so. God called upon the men to be the communicators of the truth to the congregation at large while leaving opportunity for women to teach one another (in like disposition) and children.

Grudem also stated (this you left out) that a woman’s general disposition is better suited for relational and community oriented aspects of church life. To conclude, as you did, that what Grudem means is that women are “somewhere between and adult man and a child in their ability to be rational and logical” is faulty – it was never about ability, but inclination or disposition. Now here is a statement for you to sink your teeth into. I believe that the Bible presents us with a picture for godly male leadership in the home and in the church that if followed would have godly women lovingly and most willingly desiring to follow such leadership. When this Biblical method of leadership is interrupted or abandoned, the church suffers. The feminization of the church may result in churches that are more relational, more nurturing and big on community, but by and large such churches will be woefully weak doctrinally leaving people with improper understandings of God and worse yet, false assurances of genuine faith. I don’t need anymore proof of the failure of women in leadership in the home and in the church than what we see taking place all around us. And, as men in sin tend to take the path of least resistance, leaving more and more of these leadership positions to women, we are not seeing a revival but yet a further decline in the spiritual well being of the church. Men need to be men and lead, according to God’s Word. Women need to be women and faithful follow their godly heads (fathers, husbands, brothers) as they picture all who follow the true head who is Christ the Lord.I think it takes a tremendous amount of ability for a man to be a faithful and godly leader in the home and at church. I believe it equally takes a tremendous amount of ability for a woman to be a faithful and godly helpmate in the home and at church. No, it is not about ability, but about God-given dispositions and responsibility. God has given leadership responsibilities to men who must seek to faithfully administer those responsibilities. God has given complementary responsibilities to women who must seek to faithfully administer those responsibilities. If the genders wish to cross these responsibilities up, both have the capability to do so, but it will be to their own detriment, to the detriment of the church and in disobedience to God’s Word.

That’s all I have time to cover for now.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed