Better Love by Meeting Expectations (Book Review)

Better Love Now by Tommy Nelson with David Delk. 2008

“Better Love Now” is a soft complementarian book. “Soft” because you can snuggle up with it, pretend like it doesn’t say anything bad about women, and focus on the good parts. The sort you can give to your strict complementarian friends to keep them from being too harsh with their spouses or themselves. (My last church gave it to us at a couple’s dinner.)

Author Tommy Nelson balances the hard-to-swallow basics of complementarian belief with these positive assertions: Women can work outside the home. Women can have goals and dreams for their own lives. Don’t treat your wife like a child. Submission doesn’t mean silence or letting husband get away with evil. Abuse is always wrong.1 I also enjoyed seeing him debunk a popular complementarian ideal when he mocks the pride men have in saying, “I’d die for my wife!”

There are probably not a lot of times in your life when [you can save your wife from being] run over by a truck. You almost certainly will not have to be martyred for your wife. And the problem is that for many men, martyrdom would be a lot easier than vacuuming. Martyrdom is easier than holding your wife’s hand and saying, “Is there anything I can get for you?”

Nelson says a lot that is obvious, but in a way where it’s nice to be reminded of the obvious things. Like, communication is important. (Many complementarian books prefer to say, “Stay positive and pray, but don’t confront. See, Dr. Laura and Debi Pearl.) Instead, Nelson says, “You can’t change people by dominating them” and “It’s not you against your spouse. It’s both of you against the conflict.” That’s good advice for any relationship.

Gender Roles

But the second half of each chapter divides the topics by gender. Oddly, Nelson phrases gender roles in terms of expectations. “A wife expects her husband to provide.” “A husband expects his wife to have a well managed house.” It’s a bit of an all-knowing perspective (how do you know what my husband wants?), but it also lifts responsibility off the author. I’m not telling anyone what do to, he thinks, I’m just letting them know what their spouse wants.

This book is written for complementarians.  He isn’t trying to persuade me to become one. But the complementarian parts are the weakest in the book, not because he thinks he doesn’t need to defend them, but because they lack the substance to survive real life situations.2

The roles are predictable: men must provide and lead. Women must have a well-managed house and make family their top priority. Nelson gives grace in these roles by saying “there’s nothing wrong with a wife working” … but “as long as both spouses understand that the man has the ultimate responsibility to provide.”3 (page 25) As usual, he is adding rules to the Bible. Nelson tries to find some scripture to back this up and stumbles onto a Genesis 3 description of Adam working the ground. Then he inverts 1 Timothy 5:8, saying that because the male pronoun is used, women are excluded. (If you applied this to every verse, the epistles would become nearly irrelevant to women.) 

The concept of male leadership is predictably vague. Nelson contrasts a good leader husband with a man who is “stupid, slow, cowardly… a failure, irresponsible or violent.” Of course wives don’t want that. But the two aren’t opposites. Nelson doesn’t consider that a man can be a partner rather than a leader.4

Family Order

“Christ [is] over Daddy is over Mommy, who with her husband is over the kids- all things done in order.” (pg 105) What does that mean? What things are done in order? 

Nelson describes wives as “the one God designed to be the chief caregiver” although this is not stated in scripture. I can agree with the anecdotal evidence that it’s hard on families when the mother centers her life on career, “athletic pursuits, hobbies, friendship, and volunteer activities” instead of family. Yet can’t the same thing be said about fathers?

Are you impressed with her multi tasking or worried she isn't focused on her baby?

One scripture Nelson uses for is the commonly quoted passage against women in leadership, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 with this unusual interpretation: “Paul is saying that a woman’s purpose is not rule men; it is to raise them… No matter what else a woman does, no matter where else a woman serves, there will never be any higher calling than shaping a human life. That is a woman’s greatest purpose.” (page 117)

Nelson is trying so hard to be positive and affirming. But I can’t make this make sense. There are too many exceptions. What about women who don’t have children or don’t marry? What about authors who write books that shape many lives? What about activists who change the world and bring freedom to many outside their family? Then Nelson turns around and admits family can be an idol. I agree, but he doesn’t see that telling a women to find her greatest purpose in her family is a road to idolatry.

Security

Nelson makes statements of human nature based on personal and cultural experience rather than scripture or statistics. “Men tend to enjoy adventure and risks; women prefer predictability and stability.” His defense of this is odd, explaining how wives don’t like negative surprises, like husbands flirting, missing, looking at porn, being moody, or feeling like the marriage is shaky. These are all negative aspects of risk, not adventures. I assume Nelson thinks men want excitement in their travels, career, family, hobbies, etc. I don’t think men find an unstable marriage to be a desirable or exciting risk.

The desire for security, and for women to want stability, can be parental and dull. It’s a big problem in Christianity. I love this thought in Just Courage by Gary A. Haugen, the founder of International Justice Mission.

Many Christians suspect that they are travelling with Jesus, but missing the adventure… a sense of disappointment in the way their life is turning out… successful dads, accomplished moms… we thought our life would be more significant. Our day is a harmless routine… muted monotony… It had seemed like following Christ was supposed to be a bold adventure of power and beauty and singular importance... but it doesn’t feel right to complain when God has been so good to us…  a voice asks us, now what?

Nelson knows this. He’s come across it in his ministry many times. He quotes a friend who said, “When I was in college… we used to dream about God, ministry, China, and Africa. We wanted to live for great things. Now that we are all married, it seems that we are weighed down by a desire to maintain our families and physical lives.” (page 95) This quote was in a section about men expecting the freedom to minister beyond the family.  Does he think women don’t want that? Women are foreign missionaries, activists, they endure imprisonment and shame for justice and love. Yes, some women may just want security. But I can’t promise that’s what God wants for them.

Haugen’s book also describes protective American parents, and the response of their children when they realize their parents prefer them to have a life of safety over a life of meaning. It’s disappointing. Yet this is the life we prescribe for wives, what Nelson thinks they want and find purpose in.

Respect

Nelson defines respect with some kind thoughts- When you respect someone, you recognize that they don’t exist just for you. Every person around you is worthy of respect. Forgiveness is important to respect. How you talk to or about your spouse in public shows respect.  Don’t talk to your spouse like they are stupid or the enemy. Good simple advice.

Yet for some sad reason, Nelson had to end this lesson with a painful paragraph: “Men turn into idiots when they don’t get respect. They do incredibly stupid things: materialism, workaholism, pornography, adultery. When a man feels that his wife doesn’t care for him, respect him, or value him, it’s much more difficult for him to resist temptation.” (page 148)

I’m not saying wives should disrespect their husbands, or that anyone doesn’t feel hurt and want to act out when they are disrespected. But Nelson makes this a lesson about blame. It’s putting the responsibility for a man’s behavior on the wife. Your husband is looking at porn? Well, have you been disrespecting him? Please don’t teach that a man’s sins originate and can be repaired by a woman’s respect.5

The close vulnerability of marriage allows spouses the opportunity to deeply wound and belittle each other. Building your partner up means respecting and encouraging them. But we also have a personal responsibility over our own actions and attitudes. If you want a good marriage, let go of blame. Release some expectations. Marriage shouldn’t be about power.

---

1 Admitting the obvious fact that abuse is bad is not the same as providing help for the abused or re-examining our theology to see why it enables abuse.

2 If I could “fix” this book, I would still list all the expectations that Nelson asserts husbands and wives want. I’d have each spouse checkmark all the needs that apply to them, and then communicate about it. Which needs are being met? Are some needs unfair or imbalanced? Which needs have been neglected in the marriage? What is required other than the spouse to fulfill some of these expectations? Then they could adjust his formatting to the unique situation of their marriage.

3 Oddly, later (page 71) Nelson mentions the possibility of a wife earning more than a husband, and doesn’t seem bothered by it. So I’m not sure what he means when he says the man must be the main provider.  Is providing not just about money?

4 What are leaders? Nelson says little. Leaders are “going somewhere.”

5 In the postscript, Nelson briefly discusses his struggle with clinical depression. He doesn’t mention what medical care he received, but doesn’t frame the illness as a spiritual sin, but rather something that happened, tested and strengthened the marriage. I wish we could have heard more about that process.

Women in Ministry - Book Review

My opinion is still in progress.

But when I read the arguments against egalitarianism, I want to pull my hair out! ...or at least write a blog about it. My recent reading adventure has been in Women in Ministry: Four Views edited by Robert G. and Bonnidell Clouse. All four authors believe in the authority of scripture. 

The Traditional View: Robert D. Culver

I almost appreciate Culver’s honesty for giving an actual reason (other than "God says so") for restricting women's ministry. The reason is awful, but at least he admits what other men is his position may be secretly thinking.

The first passage up for debate, 1 Timothy 2:11-14,  states that a women can’t have authority or teach, and references Eve in the creation story. To interpret this passage, Culver quotes a theology text by Bengel: "The deception [of Eve] indicates a lesser ability in comprehension, and so this limitation is why it is not allowable for a women to teach." In other words, Adam sinned knowingly, and Eve ignorantly.

Culver added that this is an "essential difference between masculine and feminine nature." The main difference between men and women is that women are less intelligent? Or more gullible? (To be honest, at this point, I lose interest in hearing anything else he has to say, except for the enjoyment of disagreeing with it.)

It's hard for Culver to accept anything new. He quoted from Thomas C. Oden, "Our ideas about pastoral ministry must by all means avoid... creativity or innovation." I agree that ministers shouldn’t do something new just for the sake of change or shock value. Yet it is hubris to assume that the current way of doing things is the best possible. We should learn from “traditional” views, but not adore them.

A Male Leadership View: Susan Foh

Again, I find it difficult to engage with this set of arguments. Foh’s hypocrisy is evident. She has given herself permission to write books, but tells us it's wrong for a women to stand in the pulpit and preach exactly what she preaches on paper. She writes with authority, yet says it's wrong for women to have authority.

As usual, the 1 Timothy passage is not treated literally. (I don't know of any churches which actually make women be silent.) Foh insists the passage commands submission, not silence.

More interesting than her arguments for her view was the complex legalism necessary to make this work in a church. Foh gives permission for a women to teach men, but only if done in certain ways and certain settings. An example:

The position of Sunday-school teacher [for adults] requires special attention... The Sunday-school teacher does not enforce his or her teachings with church discipline. It has a more informal, nonofficial, open-to-discussion character... than the official teaching of the ministry during the worship service... if a denomination or church wishes to extend the time and place for official teaching into the Sunday school, the teaching should be done by an elder and women should not participate, even in asking questions.

Maybe this is difficult for me to understand because I've never been part of a church which focused so much on pastor/elder authority. Although I would never ask questions during a sermon (because it's rude, not because I'm a woman), I have often asked questions or disagreed with points in sermon with my pastor. He's happy to discuss it with me, and if we still disagree at the end, that’s okay. Is Foh not allowed to question anything her pastor says? That sounds unhealthy to me.

In the end, her definition of authority is both confusing and frightening to me. I don't think any leader should have the kind of authority she denies to women. Men throughout history have abused authority.

A Plural Ministry View: Walter Liefeld

This leads well into Liefeld's essay. He basically argues that all leadership positions are contrary to Christ's teachings about earthly power.  Liefeld states that "The New Testament church did not ordain people to positions of authority, but designated people to positions of service."

Liefeld has an interesting interpretation about Paul's commands for women's behavior in church. Paul tried to be all things to all people in order to win them to Jesus. Liefeld suggests the 1 Timothy restrictions were meant "avoid hindering the people of his day from accepting the gospel of Christ." This suggests that in that culture, granting leadership to women would have been too extreme or controversial, and distracted people from the gospel. But today, "the situation is reversed: to prohibit a woman from having the same dignity and opportunity in church as she does in society is a stumbling block to many people."

Maybe Liefeld goes too far. I know that God does grant authority in scripture (encourage and rebuke, give instructions, etc.) yet defining exactly what sort of authority leaders should have is difficult. I don’t know if all church leadership is unbiblical- of if that’s even what Liefeld is trying to say. Maybe he is only pointing out problems with it, and what an unhealthy view of authority can have.

The word translated "authority" in 1 Timothy is a Greek word used no where else in scripture. Central to this debate is an argument of whether or not that word has a positive or negative connotation. If it's a negative meaning, that women shouldn’t have a sort of bossy, dominating authority, I agree. And neither should men. But if it's the authority to share the gospel, to correct error, to teach scripture with understanding... why restrict 50% of believers from spreading God's Kingdom in this way?

An Egalitarian View: Alvera Mickelson

The Genesis texts before the Fall are often argued on this topic. Mickelson makes two excellent observations that suggest that the second-class treatment of women throughout history is a result of living in a broken world, not according to God's design.

First, in Genesis 1, God gave to man and woman together identical responsibilities (to be fruitful, to rule, to fill the earth and subdue it). Second, in the description of why Adam need Eve in Genesis 2, the Hebrew word for "helper" does not have a subordinate meaning. The word appears twenty-one times in the Old Testament,  and seventeen of those times, it refers to God as our helper. (Obviously, God is not subordinate to man.)

Mickelson also makes personal criticisms of the way many churches assign women certain roles. "Traditionally women can plan and greatly influence almost any church activity so long as they can remain invisible." This suggests not that women are incapable or irresponsible for leadership, but that they shouldn’t be recognized for it. Yet scripture honors women who used their gifts for God’s glory.

Both Mickelson and Liefeld made excellent lists of women in scripture fulfilling roles many would have forbidden to them. Some of these include the Samaritan women in John 4 who was an evangelist by returning to her home town and telling everyone about Jesus. Mary Magdalene was sent (like an apostle) to tell the disciples of Christ's resurrection. Priscilla taught an important early church leader good doctrine. (And corrected him in the midst of his bad doctrine.)

Perhaps there isn’t a clear historical precedent for the amount of changes that we are seeing today. And there are always examples of leaders who abuse their power and do wrong. But I feel that the desire to withhold authority from women is made in fear of losing it for oneself.

Jesus called [his disciples] together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—  just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  --Matthew 20:25-28

Note: Pastor Barbie images posted just because I like them. No deeper meanings intended.

Women in Ministry

I was an attendee of a recent Beth Moore broadcast entitled “So Long, Insecurity.” Beth Moore is a gifted and inspired speaker. I have never heard a women preach like she does.
Many conservative churches would prefer not to call it preaching, or admit the fact that she has been pastoring many women around the country. They believe what she is doing is okay because she doesn’t call it preaching, and because her ministry is directed toward women.
I see how God has blessed her ministry. But the whole conference, I kept thinking, “I wish my husband were hearing this! I wish every man I knew was here!” Only five men attended, ostensibly to run the sound booth, hiding in the corners and pretending like men don’t suffer from insecurity. I wish more men were secure enough to come and listen.

There are several confusing Bible passages about woman’s roles in the church.
For this post, I only want to call attention to some very bad arguments against women in pastor and elder roles in this book:
"50 Crucial Questions: An overview of Central Concerns about Manhood and Womanhood" by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. This is a condensed version of their book, "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." (I’ve only read the short version… more than enough for me.)

Piper and Grudem argue that men bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership, although no Bible verse specifically ordains this.


I found their arguments weakest when they say, “We believe this is true, all the time, EXCEPT for certain special circumstances…” I believe that allowing special circumstances into a case this bold collapses the argument.

For example, pg 53-54
“[We would not say] that what a woman writes in books and articles cannot be spoken audibly… Neither have we ruled out occasional lectureships and periodic addresses (as distinct from recognized Bible teaching in church) in which woman address men as well as women…
“We use the qualifiers occasional and periodic because the regularity of teaching one group of people is part of what constitutes the difference between official teaching leadership, which is withheld from women in 1 Timothy 2:12 and the unofficial guidance given by Priscilla and Aquila in Acts 18:26. We recognize these lectures and addresses could be delivered in a spirit and demeanor that would assault the principle of male leadership…. We also recognize the ambiguities involved in making these distinctions between the kinds of public speaking that are appropriate and inappropriate…”

To summarize: Women can teach God’s word to men, as long as they acknowledge and honor men's leadership. P & G make it clear that they don’t believe women to be less intelligent, less in tune with God, or less capable of teaching… only that it’s not their job. Or you could say, a women can do the same things as a man as long as we don’t admit it. Don’t give her an official title, don’t give her a regular schedule of teaching, don’t honor her with any kind of recognition. She may be the speaker, but her job is still to honor men.

The other good example is page 39-41, about women in missions:
“We do not wish to impede the great cause of world evangelization by quibbling over which of the hundreds of roles might correspond so closely to pastor/elder as to be inappropriate for a woman to fill. It is manifest to us that women are fellow workers in the gospel and should strive side by side with men (Phil. 4:3; Rom. 16:3,12). For the sake of finishing the Great Commission in our day, we are willing to risk some less-than-ideal role assignments.”

To summarize: In a foreign country, if no man is available, a women can do it.
My first thought on reading this was, isn’t American part of our mission field? And then, is God’s calling to foreign countries less than ideal? Does God not provide whatever (or whoever) is needed?

An incredible book which deals with many of P&G arguments is "Men and Women in the Church" by Sarah Sumner. I want to mention two verses she addressed gave me clarity in this topic. (pg 217-220)

It was [God] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers. (Ephesians 4:11)

This verse does not specify gender in any of these roles. Does this verse apply to women?

2 Timothy 3:16-17, 4:1-2
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man [greek “anthropos” means Person] of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

The translation here doesn’t startle me. Most English writing falls back on the male gender for pronouns. But does this, (and many, many other instructional passages) only apply to men?

If I were to re-write this passage to fit the perspective of P&G, it would sound like this:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for men in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, and for women in teaching other women, so that the people of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work according to their gender. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give men this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage— and that women must have great patience and accept instruction.

But I believe the correct reading is this: "I give YOU this charge." Every believer is called by God to do these things.

Women are called by to their obedience to God (not men) and to serve with their gifts. Whether in a regular official capacity or not, everyone is called to proclaim God’s word.