Women as Icons of Christ - Part 3

Chapter 4 of Witt’s book looks at “Hierarchy and Hermeneutics.” He has in mind evangelical complementarianism and the specific species of complementarianism championed by Wayne Grudem.

I agree with Witt that Grudem’s book Politics according to the Bible is something of a smoking gun. This book - one of the worst books I’ve ever read - shows that Grudem’s view is motivated in part by his social location and right-wing political commitments. Of course, as Witt admits, that does not mean that Grudem’s views are driven solely by his socio-political commitments, but it is kind of hard to untangle his biblical exegesis from his location within the American religious right.

If you live outside white suburban middle-class religious America, you’ll understand what I am saying. If you’ve never lived outside that context, then I probably sound like a blasphemous alien from out of space.

Christians from Norway to New Zealand overwhelmingly support universal healthcare, gun control, action on climate change, and a compassionate approach to refugees. Yes, these issues are complex in themselves, and local circumstances colour each one (esp. anything to do with immigration). But the right to “bear arms and form militias,” “Don’t tread on me,” and “taxation is theft,” are uniquely American slogans that aren’t based on Christian principles as Christians elsewhere understand them. All that is to say, Grudem’s views are a mixture of his sincere exegesis infused by his Americanized religious right Christianity.

Witt makes a good point on ontology. Ontology is the study of being, what it means to be human. He points out that while Grudem and others claim men and women are ontologically equal with men, nonetheless, if men are by nature fit to lead and women are by nature fit to be led, then women it would seem that women are ontologically inferior to men. He writes:

If women are not inferior to men in terms of intelligence, emotional stability, or susceptibility to temptation, what is the essential difference that makes men capable of exercising leadership and authority, but not women?

Witt points out that the Roman Catholic Church, which does not ordain women to the diaconate or priesthood, permits women to preach, baptize, assist in pastoral care, be on parish councils, participate in diocesan synods, teach theology and Bible in seminaries, and be diocesan chancellors. “In other words,” Witt adds, “for Catholics,” women can now perform all of those tasks that complementarians would regard as prohibited because of the differences between men’s and women’s ‘roles.’”

My only gripe here is that I think, in fairness to complementarians, one needs to explore the diversity of their perspectives. Grudem is not the only version of complementarianism, many complementarians balk at his take on the Trinity and gender, and at his extensive lists of things women can and cannot do. There are hard and soft versions of complementarianism. Other than that, it was a very good chapter.