The Resignation of Eve is wrapped up in a much broader debate over the role of men and women in the church. Henderson’s stated aim in writing is to serve as a voice of reason in the debate in order to prevent a “break up” in the evangelical world over the issue of biblical manhood and womanhood (6). However, I’m not sure he makes any headway in accomplishing that goal. In the end, he proposes that the way to prevent that break up is to ascribe to his view and become an egalitarian (271-272).
Henderson argues in The Resignation of Eve that the church is oppressing women by preventing them from being able to serve in the church without restrictions as to how they should be able to serve (22). This oppression, concludes Henderson, is the reason why some women are deciding to leave the church (22). While the data certainly indicates that there is some drop off in attendance among women, Henderson does not demonstrate that the drop-off is specific only to women. He never compares the data to drop-off rates in men and drop-off rates in churches as a whole. It would have been helpful to know if this was a problem specific only to women or if it was more of an indicator of an increased disinterest in the church from the society at large.
Regardless of the stats, the main problem with the book is that Henderson deals very superficially with some issues that demand more than just mere personal observations. Whether by oversight or intention, Henderson does not deal with several issues that lie at the heart of the discussion. His book focuses almost exclusively on a select few personal conversations he has had with women throughout the country. There is no reason given as to why his personal conversations with only a few women are satisfactory in diagnosing what he perceives as a major problem in churches. I am not against reading an opposing viewpoint. In fact, I find it helpful to do so. However, the major problem with The Resignation of Eve is that it relies too much on Henderson’s personal observations. He does not go through great lengths to back up his observations biblically, nor does he interact much at all with the opposing viewpoint. We are just suppose to trust his diagnosis and prescription based upon his hand selected conversations and reflections on those conversations.
Furthermore, he seems unaware of or at least unconcerned about the deeply rooted theological issues associated with the discussion. He argues that Christians are commanded to share power and therefore should have identical roles across the board for men and women; however, when doing so he neglects to provide adequate support for his position and fails to address important issues of complementarity and subordination in the trinity, creation, and in the role of marriage which complementarians argue is designed to reflect the joyful submission of the church to the headship of Christ. A serious discussion on the role of men and women in the church should at least acknowledge and provide some kind of defense against these points of opposition.
Also, the book takes the legs out from its argument nearly from the onset. Henderson uses research from Barna and conversations he personally has had with women throughout the country in order to build his case. However, the research from Barna indicated that women were by and large satisfied with their church’s position on women’s roles. With the data not living up to Henderson’s expectations, he then downplays the research in favor of the evidence from his conversations he has had with individual women throughout the country (10-11). He doesn’t seem aware that the fact that he hand selected these conversations may alter his conclusions.
He then categorizies these women that he’s had conversation with into three groups: those who have “resigned to” their church’s teaching and have accepted that they will not be allowed to exercise all their gifts and abilities in a church setting, those who have “resigned from” the church out of frustration of the church’s view on women, and those who are “re-signing” their churches and are attempting to make changes in their church’s view on the role of women. In these categories, his bias is clearly displayed: women who are complementarian have settled for less than what they are capable; women who are egalitarian are “following in the footsteps of Jesus” (5). Never, does he seem to concede that these women who are “resigned to” their churches’ teaching may not just be ignorant and passive, but could be outrageously happy and confidently resolved not just in their church’s teaching, but in the Scripture’s establishment of clear patterns of church involvement for men and women.
Furthermore, he argues that our culture has evolved beyond the oppressive concessions made by Scripture to accommodate the culture of the Ancient Near East and 1st Century Palestine. He compares these old views to Amerigo Vespucci’s first map of the Americas:
“The maps we use are subjective–they’re drawings of how explorers ‘see’ their world, city, or neighborhood. Their maps represent how they think we should see the world. Consequently, maps at times leave out details their creators simply didn’t know about… For two thousand year, Christianity has been working off the mental maps that were created by our own explorers (many of whom lived during the same era as Vespucii). Is it possible that, similar to Vespucci’s map, some of the maps we’ve inherited are also wrong–limited by the perceptions of their creators, including how God views women? (270).”
This betrays, I believe, the clarity with which the Scripture speaks on these issues. They are not mere culture accommodations, but are applications that stem from established patterns laid out in creation itself (1 Timothy 2:13).
One final point of contention and perhaps the most significant, in a very short paragraph, Henderson provides the foundation for what he understands to be the biblical case for identical roles for men and women in the church:
“Christians who believe men and women have equal influence in the church have a pre-Fall paradigm, meaning men and women equally express the image of God. For them, gifts, not gender, determine who does what in the Kingdom. Those who hold a post-Fall paradigm believe that Eve reports to Adam. Due to our fallen nature, they believe we need to focus on order. Pre-Fall people are concerned more with freedom.”
He takes no time to explain how he sees his view as a “pre-fall” understanding of the role of men and women in the church, but just throws it out there while at the same time labeling those who he would disagree with as having a “post-fall” understanding. Complementarians have routinely pointed back to the garden to demonstrate God’s intended purpose in male/female roles, namely that Adam was created first then Eve, Eve was created from Adam, Eve is said to be Adam’s helper, and Adam provides a name for Eve–all of which happen “pre-fall.”
In the end, I did not find this book to be a helpful resource for men, women and churches seeking to understand God’s intended purpose for the role of men and women in the church. It provides some insight into the egalitarian point of view, but even this is limited as the work focuses primarily on his interpretation of the data he has gathered from his personally selected conversations with women throughout the country. There is very little space devoted to bringing the Bible to bare on the discussion. For this reason, I would not recommend this book as a valuable resource in understanding the issues more clearly.
On this issue, I would recommend Recovering Biblical Manhood and Woman by Wayne Grudem and John Piper. For a balanced approach that gives a voice to both sides of the debate, check out Two View on Women in the Ministry.
***Disclaimer: I was given a free copy of this book for the purposes of this review.
Thank you so much for your thorough and thoughtful review. Many of your non bible related issues with me were actually done on purpose. And since you seem to be a person of high principle Im sure you’ll re read the first few stories and find that what you state here is in fact not true.
Thanks again
“Never, does he seem to concede that these women who are “resigned to” their churches’ teaching may not just be ignorant and passive, but could be outrageously happy and confidently resolved not just in their church’s teaching, but in the Scripture’s establishment of clear patterns of church involvement for men and women.
Thanks for your comment. I will concede that “never does he seem to concede…” was a little strong. I acknowledge that you do point out on page 35 that Rose is satisfied in her role at home, work and church. However, in that same reflection on Rose, you feel the need to qualify her satisfaction: “When you consider her teenage pregnancy–its easy to understand why Rose is grateful for the structure and security submission has provided for her.” So even when you do acknowledge her satisfaction, you conclude that it must be related to her difficult upbringing. If someone is satisfied in that lifestyle, surely something must have gone wrong.
For this reason, I stand by the observation that there is a steady, consistent, and perhaps subtle condescension toward the “resigned to” women in your book. It seems that when you talk about anyone toeing the line of complementarity, you reduce them to products of their environment who have never really thought long enough to challenge the status quo. However, when you talk about anyone in the “resigned from” or “resigned to” categories, you exalt them as those who are “walking in the footsteps of Jesus.”
I certainly want to be fair in my review of your book. You worked hard on it and deserve a fair critique, even in this low traffic neck of the woods that I call my blog. The issue above is important because it raises an important question about whether or not any of us can rise above our environments and see clearly on our own. This is why, I believe it is essential to bring the Scriptures to bare on this issue. Our vision is limited, but the Scriptures serve as a window into the unlimited wisdom and knowledge of God. We can trust that what we read is true because it serves as a subset of his understanding. Thanks again for taking the time to comment on my review of your book.
Thanks for reviewing our book. I say”our” because I’m one of the women of RoE. I would propose that someone do a true numbers based study to include the questions you pose, maybe a new Barna investigation. In my humble and admittedly narrow experience, there are many women who fit one or more of the three categories of resignation. I “resigned to” long before I “resigned from” (even though I’ve never stopped being active in the work and ministry of the Church collectively). If nothing else, there has been a lack of men and women who will come alongside folks like me and help us make sense for our lives and callings of what really doesn’t make sense at all.
I am looking forward to the coversation, to which I will be a better contributor after I have read the rest of the book!
Thanks, Laura for commenting. I too would welcome the new Barna investigation. Thanks for contributing to Mr. Henderson’s book. I will be praying for you and your husband Tom as you think through these important issues in your post-missionary lives. May wisdom and clarity be yours.
Tory
Thanks for the thoughtful review of my book. I would like to invite you and your readers to our upcoming free – Resignation of Eve Cloud Conference on Feb. 27 @8pm EST – you only need a telephone to join the call and have a chance to participate in a conversation with myself and the women of “Resignation of Eve.” David Kinnaman, President and author of the Barna Group will also be on this call to talk about his latest research on women and the church. http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/D5YMSUE4530RMOB – Hope you are able to join us. Thanks, Jim Henderson