Stackhouse and Slippery Slopes

Thank you to Suzanne for pointing me to an interesting article by Susan Wise Bauer. The article starts with a review of John Stackhouse’s book Finally Feminist. This book is one I would like to read if I get the chance, as it seems to get behind the detailed exegetical arguments to a proper theological understanding of gender issues. Bauer’s article moves into a thorough refutation of the slippery slope argument, originally and still a logical fallacy, which is so much loved by conservative Christians who argue that any change to the status quo is the first step towards theological and social liberalism.

0 thoughts on “Stackhouse and Slippery Slopes

  1. Bauer wrote a very thorough article. It was great.

    I am disappointed that complementarian blogs, even those which appear to want to interact with others, such as Jim Hamilton’s, have all deleted my comments.

    I know we try to be very open to engaging with complementarians on the BBB. That is – we have never deleted a comment by a complementarian to my knowledge.

  2. Indeed, Suzanne. I don’t think we should ever delete comments unless they are obvious spam or are personally abusive. I don’t think other blogs should do so, although each blog owner is entitled to their own policy.

  3. I can’t comment on all the deletions, but the majority were because Suzanne’s comments had indeed become offensive and, on at least two occasions of which I am aware, slanderous.
    Trying to pretend that all the deletions were for no good reason is disingenuous to say the least

  4. Of course, Suzanne, one can simply ignore comments from people who have a track record of persistently making irrelevant comments. But I suppose if they become too persistent and irrelevant to the subject in hand it might be necessary to delete, after first warning the persistent commenter.

  5. I try very hard to back up comments by quotes. I can understand that people would ask for quotes if they felt that I was presenting something that was in any way untrue.

  6. Peter thanks for posting this. Bauer’s offering is solid whether complementarians like it or not. the one thing I have never understood about the complementarian argument is the blatant hypocrisy of using certain texts to “prove” that God does not call women to leadership.

    I hear about how husbands are to lovingly lead their wives and children as, say, Ephesians 5:25-33. That’s cool as far as I’m concerned—so long, of course, as one carries the soft analogy between Christ and the husband a bit further. While Christ loves the Bride (church), He also gave the Bride gifts to exercise for the fulfilling of the Great Commission and the building of the kingdom of God. Christ gives gifts to the Bride to use so why can’t husbands, claiming to imitate Christ’s love for the Bride, release their wives to walk in the gifts Christ gave the Bride of Christ? How is it Christlike to tell your wife or daughter that because she is female she cannot use her gifts (that Jesus gave her before you ever married or conceived her)?

    Just wondering.

  7. Pingback: Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » I’ve Been Memed!

  8. regen, true complementarians encourage their wives to exercise their gifts. Leadership of the Church is barred by God, but leadership of women by women is encouraged.
    I have a very gifted wife and an equally gifted young daughter and I am always encouraging them to use the gifts that God has given them.
    I would also point out that marrying some one you have conceived is strictly a no no and as such I am surprised at your suggesting it!

    Peter, How’s it going with the scientists you asked me to list? That went very quiet.

  9. Glenn, forgive me for typing quickly. The point of my comment for husbands was how they relate to their wives (the ones they marry) and their daughters (the ones they conceived).

    As for your point about God barring women from leadership other than women over women, I still disagree. Peace out!

    Way to go Susan!

  10. Glenn,

    I prefer not to be lead by men unless their ability to read grammars and lexicons is up to par. So far, I respect, F. F. Bruce, Metzger, Fee, Bauckham and a few more – all egalitarians.

    I just will not accept that people who can’t muddle their way through a dictionary should have the right to make a pronouncement that women should only teach women.

  11. Suzanne, if you can show me where in God’s word it says that one of the qualifications for leadership is the ability to read grammars and lexicons I will concede.
    (don’t bother, it is not there)

    Also Suzanne, the pronouncement that women are barred from the leadership of the Church is from God and not, as you continually try to intimate, from men.

    Also your assessment of who can is extremely suspect, in as much as, I have noticed that unless someone agrees with your (suspect) interpretations then they are automatically judged to be incompetent, so unsurprisingly, the men you admit to being competent all (supposedly) agree with you. No surprises there then!!

  12. Glenn, inability to read grammars and lexicons may not disqualify a leader, but perhaps incompetence should, and certainly lying should. And while misquoting a grammar or lexicon in the first place is not lying, just incompetence, continuing to misquote it after the error has been pointed out is lying. Dr Grudem’s misunderstanding of lexicons has been pointed out, but he continues to teach his error, in new books and in articles which he has reaffirmed by relocating them to his personal website. Until he corrects his errors of fact I cannot consider him a properly qualified church leader.

    As for “the pronouncement that women are barred from the leadership of the Church“, insofar as it is based on a disputed interpretation of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12, is this really from God? Or could this interpretation be a human tradition, such that “you nullify the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down” (Mark 7:13 TNIV)? And, although other verses may have things to say about a woman’s place in the home, I don’t think there is any other verse, any other word in the Bible on which you can base a claim that “women are barred from the leadership of the Church“.

  13. Pingback: Speaker of Truth » Strange Bedfellows

  14. So Peter, Dr Grudem is a liar and an incompetent? Your insistence on denigrating Dr Grudem’s character despite your professed adherence to a principle of not attacking a persons character in blog posts would appear to make you a liar and a hypocrite.

    You can ignore the clear teaching of scripture, that is your choice, but your insistence that 1 Timothy 2:12 is unclear would be laughable if it was not so sad.
    You only treat it as unclear because you don’t like what it says.

    Grow up Peter and take a long hard look in the mirror.

  15. Glenn, I did not call Grudem a liar, that is your word. I presented the fact that in a particular matter he is telling a lie. I said nothing about his character. Whether one lie, or even a set of them, makes a bad character is for others to judge.

    I’m not insisting that 1 Timothy 2:12 is unclear (although Köstenberger writes that “no firm conclusions could be reached on the basis of lexical study alone”). To me the meaning of authentein is reasonably clearly more or less how it is rendered in KJV “usurp authority” or TNIV “assume authority”. This kind of meaning has been attested by lexicons since the 2nd century AD, when the lexicographer Moeris defined Hellenistic authentein as equivalent to Attic autodikein, defined as “to have an independent jurisdiction” – which is of course something which no church member, male or female, should aspire to. My source for this? One of the same Grudem’s books! And one which you personally recommended in a comment here. Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, pages 678 and 680, in an appendix written by H. Scott Baldwin.

  16. I felt it was the last straw when I realized that several of the references for aner in the Liddell Scoot lexicon are translated in a gender neutral way – as “people”, “mankind” and “race of men” back in 1914. I just don’t think that a race of men can be all male. I don’t know how that would work.

    So the information from the Liddell Scott was misrepresented. Some people, let me not mention names today, pull a few words out of a lexicon and pretend that that is the entry.

  17. Glenn

    I am shocked by the tone of your comments here – maybe there’s some background that I’m missing out on…

    It seems a fair enough comment that people say they cannot trust someone who continues to misquote something as important as a Greek lexicon, even when this error has been repeatedly pointed out to them. All the more so when these misquotations are being used to back up the position they have taken based on the translation of a single verb which appears only once in the whole Bible.

    Why do you suspect people’s motives so much?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image