The post is unbearably tendentious, and so was the comment thread until Mrs. Groothuis posted this in response to a commenter:
The outburst speaks volumes. You must truly believe that only a man should preach because only a man could have the fire and the unction and the power of the Holy Spirit to preach in a way that astonishes, convicts, delivers and saves. Sir, you are sadly mistaken. Women are human too-- fully human.
Of all the childish, foot-stomping, temper-tantrumish non sequiturs I have run across in all my born days, THIS one reminds me most of myself back when I was Doug's student and Rebecca was my mentor. Goodness, do I have a lot to apologize for. As for this current bit of childishness, I can only say it is the fruit I have come to expect from religious feminism.
Now, for a good and pointed response to Mrs. Groothuis' argument, I commend to you the new post by Steven Hutchens at MereComments:
Report from the Front: "Mere Functionalism"
note: I have removed the link to the post because Doug has removed the post from his blog.
2 comments:
In the comments, it is also interesting to note this from Doug Groothuis (in the context of leadership in the home):
"What's wrong with a meritocracy concerning biblical knowledge and wisdom?"
What is wrong with it is that there is no biblical basis for a meritocracy. No basis whatsoever. There is no Scriptural reference which indicates Christian marriage is to be constructed on the basis of merit.
First, as Dr. Cotner so aptly points out in response to Doug on this point - it is hardly Scriptural for us to judge our own spiritual maturity in comparison with our spouse.
Second, Scripture is quite clear as to the proper structure of Christian marriage and why. If we reduce Christian marriage to a functionalist meritocracy, then we have stripped the New Testament of a central icon - that the husband is the head of the wife *as* Christ is head of the Church.
Lastly, the attitude that asks us to bow to this supposedly biblical meritocracy also brings us an attitude of profound disrespect for husbands as clueless dolts:
" . . . surely there is no basis for a husband or father to call all the shots in the home when he likely knows even less of God’s Word than those who have teaching roles in the church."
Further, in Doug's responses in the discussion of Rebecca's post, comes this:
"But the issue is who has the final authority and on what basis. If that man has it simply by being a man, that usurps God's authority as ultimate."
Not at all, Doug - it no more usurps God's authority than a meritocracy would. In fact, patriarchy affirms God's authority as the Father from whom all human fatherhood is derived. Patriarchy (iow, "father rule") derives its secondary authority from God whereas a meritocracy denies God's authority to choose, much as he chose the Israelites as his people or Moses to be His spokesman over his oratorically gifted brother, Aaron.
Patriarchy can only be said to usurp God's authority if you refuse to recognize secondary authorities. And if you do that, what good is having the authority of the pastoral office? Again, I think the charge that Rebecca reduces the authority of the pastoral office is correct.
Post a Comment