Mode of Communication II

On his own blog, Peter has completed his series on exegesis and the The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible. It is well worth reading. (I have just finished writing my own post in a rather half hearted way and all I can say is that I wish Peter's series were here, and my post were in the Antarctic where it deserves to be.)

I had intended to write about how the difference between speaking and writing contributes to Grudem's theories about the role of women in the church in Evangelical Feminism and Bibilical Truth. This is considered a scholarly book by Al Mohler and is recommended by many complementarians. I believe that at 864 pages long, it might be Grudem's longest book.

However, as is often the case, I stopped along the way and read again one of Grudem's earlier chapters. This is where he compares three different kinds of beliefs. The effeminate left (egalitarianism), the complementarian middle, and the violent right. Grudem writes on page 54 that egalitarians are characterized by:

mutual submission, often husband as wimp, and wife as usurper
men become unmasculine, unattractive to women,
women become unfeminine and unattractive to men
ambivalent towards sex
moving contrary to nature

With reference to the complementarian middle, on page 55 Grudem writes,

husband: loving, humble headship, wife: intelligent, joyful submission to husband
monogamous, equally fulfilling intercourse as the deepest expression of a great "mystery", equality and differences and unity,
positive delight in sex as a gift from God
natural desires fulfilled, man and women have a deep sense of acting as God made them to act

No data, no footnotes, no 'I wonder if egalitarians feel that way about themselves', no illustrations of masculine looking egalitarian women, no Kinsey report percentages. Without in any way writing about how I feel personally when I read this kind of book, I will do a quick communication commentary.

This reminds me of the Marlborough man ad and the kind of advertising which makes people think that if they use a certain product, it will make them more attractive to the opposite sex. If you smoke this cigarette you will be more masculine and attractive to women. If you use this perfume, or lipstick, you will attract more men. I think that the same thing is going on here. Grudem is saying, if you become a complementarian you will be more attractive to the opposite sex.

I have read blog reviews of this book by some complementarian women and one of them writes, "It is readable, enjoyable, and usable." What can I say? The table I quoted sets the tone, if you are a complementarian man or woman, you are sexy and attractive, if you are an egalitarian you are probably not.

I really was going to try and make this post funny and entertaining, and write a little more, but somewhere along the line I just didn't find it funny any more. I will try to critique another section of Grudem's book tomorrow.

Good Night.