|
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism Posters
Photos Art
Search for Posters Art Prints, photos and get
results from all the many categories from Amazon including
books, videos, dvds, toys, video games, and more.
|
|
|
Posters Art
Prints Photos collectables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for some reason you can't find what the
poster or art print your looking for try using the search boxes
below
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
I read this book only because I believe in gender equality and teach on the subject. I felt it was necessary to be fully aware of the traditionalist position on women. After reading this book I do feel more equipped to teach. And I am now more determined to aid in releasing women from the bondage of male-headship(as defined in this book.) In my experience I have found that the traditionalist/complementarian views on women have done nothing but cause pain and feelings of inferiority for women.
In my opinion, the authors have a poor scriptural foundation for their position. I am horrified that they would be willing to subordinate Christ eternally in order to justify the subordination of women. I encourage anyone who is studying the issue to read many books on the topic before making a quick decision.
We are all called to be like Christ. Christ not only treated women with dignity but he discipled them and sent them to preach the Gospel. The best thing to do his follow the example He set.
Rating:  -
Should a book be rejected simply on basis of its foreword? Absolutely. John Piper's "For Single Men and Women (And the Rest of Us)" reinforces just about every myth associated with the term "The Gift of Singleness" FINALLY being exploded by new Christian writers dealing with the current epidemic of protracted singleness in the church. These myths have gone unquestioned for so long because anyone who challenges them runs the risk of being admonished for discontentment, doubting or even disobeying God's sovereign will. Individuals silently suffer, and the church continues to suffer as these misconceptions endure.
Despite his best intentions, Piper has contributed to the problem with obsolete works on singleness that endure on many websites (all but one of the references to this foreword are from the 70's and 80's), not to mention his heavyhanded "Don't Waste Your Life/Cancer" message that has inspired spinoffs ("Don't Waste Your Singleness") and edgy imitators, mostly married men who have the luxury of being oblivious to the current predicament of single women in the church facing a severe shortage of potential husbands. See Barna Archives, CampuslifeCollegeGuide.com male/female ratios, and Christianity Today articles by columnist Camerin Courtney, who calls the Christian man shortage "the issue that rises to the top" for Christian singles today). The only gender imbalance Piper bothers to mention is among those in Christian service, from whom he seems to be getting his information on singleness. Failing to discuss the surplus of female singles in the larger church body seems like either a deliberate side-step of the issue or ignorance of the facts. Either way, it's inexcusable for a document of this stature that makes such sweeping declarations about how people should live their lives.
Sensitivity aside, there are numerous problems with "the gift of singleness", starting with the fact that it's not in the Bible. Ever since the 70's, when the Living Bible and other modern translations began the erroneous use of this phrase in 1 Corinthians 7:7, Christian leaders have assumed that IDIOS CHARISMA meant "own grace gift" from God of either marriage or singleness. But "idios" is more correctly translated as "idiosyncratic", which suggests that Paul was referring to something much more unique than the either/or status of married or single. He accentuates his point about uniqueness using a Greek expression still common today: "hos men houto de hos houto", most closely translated in the NASB as "one in this manner, and another in that." It's a figure of speech! "This" and "that" are non-specific: "this" does not mean marriage and "that" does not mean "singleness". As much as he recognized the advantages of singleness at that time of "present distress" v.26, we have no reason to believe that he saw it as a gift or calling.
Nor can we assume that Paul was making claim to some special gift of celibacy: whatever was his gift that allowed him to proceed on such a perilous mission alone, he probably didn't quite understand himself. Certainly, there's no biblical evidence to suggest that God ameliorated his sexual desires, (but plenty that suggests he struggled with something of a fleshly nature), nor is there anything in the Bible claiming that "with the gift comes the grace to be chaste", as Piper dangerously suggests. Is he aware that less than one third of single Christians remain virgins until marriage?
Coinciding with these late 20th century biblical revisions, rogue doctrines on singleness have proliferated throughout the Christian world. The never-married, later disgraced Bill Gothard taught millions who attended his Basic Youth Conflicts seminars that singleness as a gift and a calling, using the terms interchangeably, with the underlying assumption of divine assignment or "rhema". Into the 80's and 90's there may have been some softening attempts that stressed "gift" over "calling", but the two remain inextricably linked. Obviously, this is damage control because there has been damage done. Ellen Varughese in "The Freedom to Marry" wrote at length about Christian singles immobilized in their intent to pursue marriage without any clear "word from the Lord", having been taught to view their default singleness as "God's plan" for their lives, rather than as something that could be caused by individual or generational sin. This is just another symptom of modern Christians becoming too quick to frame events in terms of God's personal plan for an individual's life, leading to excuse making, doubtfulness, magical thinking, and lack of compassion. In order to restore the ordinariness and universality of marriage enjoyed by previous generations of Christians, we must put the emphasis back on God's revealed will about marriage, which puts the onus on human volition (i.e. a man "finds a wife" in Proverbs 18:22, or "takes a wife" in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "some made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 19; Note: God's instruction for Jeremiah to not marry was particular to time and place).
From its biblically specious roots to the careerism of Christian singles writers who keep passing it on, "the gift of singleness" does not have an honorable history. It has become a thorn in the side of the a generation of surplus Christian women that dismisses their collective grief and allows leaders to hide behind sermons about sovereignty and contentment instead of addressing the sinful causes of this epidemic, such as the flight of men from our churches (as well as teachings that have sown seeds of doubt, ambivalence, and complacency towards pursuing marriage). But a few of us have caught on to this insidious cycle, most notably Debbie Maken, who has written a book about "rethinking the gift of singleness".
We do not need to call singleness a gift to effectively encourage spiritual essentials such as gratitude and contentment, or to honor those who have devoted themselves to celibate service (and wouldn't need the flattery of calling it a gift, if indeed their service is sincere). Even if you share Piper's extreme views on sovereignty (he wrote an article after September 11th titled "Why I Do Not Say, 'God Did Not Cause the Calamity, but He Can Use It for Good'"), there are plenty of things that God has given that are not considered gifts. When was the last time you heard the Ten Commandments referred to as a gift?
Let's all send "the gift of singleness" to the Christian lexicon trashbin, and work together to persuade church leaders to do the same. We can begin by appealing to the editors of The Message and other modern translations to restore translations of 1Corinthians 7:7 so that they once again conform more closely with the original Greek. Most importantly, Christian singles need more than to be told "if you marry, you do not sin". If we care about the future of the church, we should give them a wholehearted blessing to pursue marriage, with no reservations whatsoever about God's will.
Rating: -
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982), which was drawn up under the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, contains guidelines of principles of interpretation to which most scholars, who hold a high view of Scripture, adhere.
As evangelicals, I believe Piper and Grudem would agree to these principles. What is unfortunate is that they have not applied a very basic one in their own book, thus undermining the study from the word 'go'. They fail to apply an inductive approach to Bible study where one gathers all evidence on a subject before formulating a thesis.
Instead, Piper and Grudem state in Chapter One that the essence of masculinity is to lead women and the essence of feminity is to submit to men. The rest of the book consists then of gathering the support of like minded people. The danger of such an approach is that the authors' culture or their personnal preference becomes the starting point rather than the Word of God . The question of this book's approach to Scriptures is thus, by no means, a secondary one!
The approach widely upheld by evangelical scholars is not a deductive method but an inductive method that searches all of Scriptures. On the issue of women, this inductive approach would cause the student of the Bible to research and analyse EVERY PLACE IN THE BIBLE that speaks of the exercise of authority to see what it says about it, if women are ever permitted to be in authority over a man, and if so, how and when. Piper and Grudem fail to produce this kind of work.
I do not claim to have unearthed this major flaw myself. Rather, I read this book called "RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN, a Response to Traditionalism and Feminism by George and Dora Winston (Xulon Press, available here on AMAZON). They address the question of Piper and Grudem's methodology and offer the fruit of the labor of an inductive approach (560 pages). The result is an harmonious AND comprehensive view of women in all spheres of authority (State, workplace, nature, marriage, family and, of course, Church). Fascinating reading! One would call this book a true biblical theology on the subject.
By comparison, in my opinion, Piper and Grudem fail to give Scripture a chance. By adopting a deductive approach they simply superimposed on the Bible what they already think the Bible teaches about the place of women in the Church. In doing so they did not keep an open mind but oriented their research to fit the opinion of the establishment they represent. In short, in this book traditionalism and the authors' personal preference lead the way.
Rating:  -
Reading many of the negative reviews, I couldn't help but think that the reviewers couldn't have read the words written. I did expect that there would have been some contrary views expressed but the antagonistic response of many Christian readers was surprising. I also wondered what kind of reviews would be given by the female elders at our church???
I found the book quite easy to read. I have found both Grudem and Piper lucid writers and I enjoy the challenge of following their arguments.
In relation to the central issue of Sexual Complementarity and differing roles within sexually-differentiated equal beings created in the image of God with the same opportunities for salvation, I believe the work is compelling.
As a Male, I was convicted again of Adam's failure to defend Eve in Genesis 3:1 and not compel the Serpent to direct his questions to him as God had given him the command before Eve was created.
This same weakness in the male version of Man is still evident in Churches where men defer to women to take on roles that they should take themselves.
The pastor's heart of Dr Piper is evident in seeking to find a Biblical Answer to the child's question: "Dad, what does it mean to be a man and not a woman?" I am mindful that the need to answer this question is more pressing now in 2006 then it was in 1988 when they published the Danver Statement.
There is excellent exegesis throughout and I am more comfortable with accepting the full counsel of God in Scripture and seek a rational explanation of seemingly contradictory statements than the argument to set aside the controversial sections referred to in this book.
Rating: -
The book's whole concentration is on subjugating females to males. It's about all the things females are to do to serve the male sex, particularly the husband. There is almost nothing about what men or husbands are supposed to do for their wives.
If the material in this book is correct, why would any woman want to get married? The way husband wife relationships are described in this book is that the relation exists for the benefit of the husband, not the wife. A woman would be better off single than being in the type of marriage relationship this book describes.
If the material in this book is correct why would any woman want to attend church? Her only function would be as a servant to lift up the male leaders of the church. She would be better off spending her time elsewhere where she is permitted to use all her gifts.
This book is the best argument I know for why women should not marry or go to church.
|
