Discuss Theology

Grudem and Piper complain about the apparent oversight of Gretchen Hull to interact with their position.   Hey boys, she grew up totally surrounded by “your position”.  The whole context of her book is a response to people who hold it.

An unusual twist from CBMW. Maybe re-thinking her roots would be a good thing.  It is really a lot like reading the Bible in historical context I think.
{7}This was the most frustrating thing about reading Gretchen Gaebelein Hull’s Equal to Serve. Literally nowhere did she interact with a vision of manhood and womanhood like ours-one that focuses on a man’s primary responsibility to lead, not on the quest for power or control or dominance or supremacy. She consistently described “patriarchalism” and “traditionalism” as “preoccupied with [rigid, artificial] role playing” (pp. 34, 119, 128), propagating “male supremacy” (p. 84), ascribing less worth and dignity to women (p. 87), claiming that “one person must always be dominant” (pp. 104, 197), espousing “rigid vocational roles” and “rigid spheres of ministry” (p. 124), endorsing a “narrow female role” (p. 125), calling homemakers “non-working” mothers (p. 157), saying “child-related duties” belong only to the woman (p. 160), teaching a “chain of command” (p. 192), recommending that men “never submit” (p. 194), equating submitting with “knuckling under” (p. 195), seeking for men an “exalted position” (p. 198), equating headship with “power over” and having a “power-oriented” view of headship (pp. 205-206), returning “women to the nunnery” (p. 289) and excluding them from ministry (p. 222). Our point is not that there haven’t been people who are guilty of all those things. Our point is that you cannot establish your case by implying yours is the only good alternative to the rejected view. This fallacy of the excluded middle runs throughout the CBE declaration, as we will see.–Grudem and Piper frustrated with Gretchen Hull’s book, complementarian