Feminism and Theological Liberalism

    I stumbled across this piece by Al Mohler this morning.  Now, I must admit to a predisposition to disagree with Mohler.  He seems, most of the time, to be "majoring on the minors," as one person put it--tending to argue about those hot button issues that really rile up his "base," but which seem on the margins in importance.  In this particular piece, he is worried about "evangelical feminism."  Why? Because, according to him and Wayne Grudem, it undermines biblical authority by pushing too hard "egalitarian" themes in relationships between men and women.  At least, that what seems to be at stake, since he is not as clear as one would like.  He does admit that the use of the term "liberalism" is problematic, and then goes on to say that you are liberal if you do not deny "the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives." (quoting Grudem) 
    What is so striking about this is that just about anyone can accuse just about anyone else of being "liberal" on this definition, since it seems ultimately to be grounded in a commitment to a literalism (notice how one letter makes such a difference) that does not allow for much nuancing in biblical interpretation.  Since he does not get into much detail about what parts of "egalitarianism" the two of them object to, it is difficult to see what he is worried about.  Yet, I have many colleagues who would affirm both the authority of Scripture and egalitarianism, and they would argue that Mohler and Grudem are simply misreading Scripture.
    The question all this raises for me is: how do we actually begin to have serious dialog about issues such as this?  Mohler's piece is little more than an attempt to "circle the wagons" by encouraging his followers to keep out the dangerous evangelical feminists.  Do you suppose we might ever get to the point where we actually tried to understand what the other side was saying, and then engage each other in legitimate give and take--without appeal to simplistic critiques rooted in ways of reading the bible that we ourselves do not even adhere to unconditionally? 

Comments

[zero]

get to the point of understanding the other side? that will happen when sides cease the desire to gain dominance over the other. and in this instance, the deck is stacked. those "liberals" who want equality for all gets bulldozed every time by those who wish to wield absolute power. wouldn't it be great if those who professed faith to actually look to themselves within the word of god for how to conduct themselves instead of listening to men who tell them what it all means, thus ensuring the promotion of someone's agenda.

[Kate]

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Psalm 146:3 KJV

[chuck]

But, perhaps, in the Son of Man?
:>)

[Kate]

But not Al Mohler.

Notice I quote the King James Version because if it's good enough for the apostles.... ;-)

[evagrius]

That particular phrase, "Put not your trust in sons of men...etc;" is an integral part of the Byzantine Liturgy. A very apt commentary on Byzantine politics.

[chuck]

Well, those apostles know best:>)

[Brad Anderson]

Very funny, Kate. Or as a parishoner told an old pastor of mine, "I believe in the Bible just as God gave it to King James!"