Author John Stackhouse argues in his book Finally Feminist for what he considers a reasonable, moderate position on the gender debates between evangelical complementarians and hard-line feminists. He has learned and taught at secular universities which he is proud of, yet he also admits to being “an orthodox Bible believer” (17).
Though he admits that ideally research would be done without presuppositions, Stackhouse proposes a methodology of gender understanding that requires the formulation of his theory and then testing it against historical, cultural, and biblical data. He follows the Wesleyan approach of using Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience together to come to the truth (27). The model he comes up with is “based on fundamental Christian considerations” (32). Stackhouse is consistent in applying this theory, and fits supporting facts culled from church history, modern culture, and the biblical text to this theory. However, this seems to go against reason as he is using circular logic by starting and ending at the conclusion he wants to make.
Stackhouse’s thesis is “to show how the Bible, which has often been understood by both feminists and patriarchialists to be inimical to feminism, properly can be seen to support feminism in our time” (17, emphasis original). His goal is to take what he sees as good and relevant from both sides of the argument and combine them together into an egalitarian position which he calls “Christian feminist” (15). He states that he desired to understand men and women equal in ever way “with no job or role or responsibility closed to either of them except where sheer biology dictated” (34).
Stackhouse is to be commended for several things in this volume. He does value God’s Word, the Bible, and seeks to apply it to his paradigm. In particular, he does appeal frequently to the epistles of Peter and Paul and the example of Jesus. He finds it important to “find a way to keep from suggesting that the Bible contradicts itself and to avoid the intolerable conclusion that Jesus and Paul contradict themselves” while coming to his egalitarian position (38). This is highly commendable as it is important to remember that no matter how hard it is to understand certain passages, they will ultimately be reconciled to one another though this may certainly be obscured by the limitations of the human mind.
In his attempt to reconcile complementarianism and feminism, Stackhouse points out a legitimate problem with traditional complementarianism. He asks the question, “Why would God call entirely equal sexes to deeply different roles” (70)? In recent history, those who hold the complementarian view have emphasized the equality of men and women in order to stave off attacks from feminists. However, this equality must be qualified. Yes, there is spiritual equality and both are made in the image of God to the same degree. However, the way a man and a woman image God is distinct as are their personhood and roles. Equality of the sexes should still be espoused, but it must be qualified that equality does not mean the same in every respect.
Another commendable point in Stackhouse’s presentation of his views is that the gospel is more important than the liberation of women. While he does advocate women to take equal positions with men in order to be “free and whole, not trammeled and reduced by patriarchy” (48), he finds the gospel of God to of greater importance, particularly in areas around the world where his feminist position would be a hindrance to the gospel.
Unfortunately, in Stackhouse’s attempts to find a middle ground, he has compromised proper hermeneutics. Instead of arguing from the text using proper inductive procedures, he takes his desired position and finds support for it wherever possible. He shows his bias in his final plea: What are the voices in my head telling me to decide on one or another alternative, and how do I feel about each one” (103, emphasis added)? Though he does desire these heart decisions to be backed by head decisions, he understands that ultimately one believes what they want. This does not make it right.
Stackhouse is up front about his biases going into his study of gender. He states that early on he had “an egalitarian marriage but without a thoroughly constructed theological basis for it” (22). He believed that this position was right, and studied against the traditional teaching he had received until he found a position that matched his feelings on the matter. He uses examples from history, such as Margaret Thatcher, to prove his point that women are fully successful in leadership, though this by no means indicates that it is biblically warranted or mandated.
Stackhouse does not deny that patriarch was practiced and taught in both Israel and the church. However, he desires to find this patriarchy as an accommodation to the culture, much as slavery was treated. He states that Paul’s argument was to “not try to change what cannot be changed,…but make the best of it according to all that we know of mutual love in Christ” (60). However, slavery is never condoned in the Bible while the leadership of the husband and the submission of the wife are. What’s even more scandalous is that he applies this same type of understanding to homosexuality, stating in a footnote that it could be condoned, albeit cautiously, in certain limited circumstances.
At several points Stackhouse seems to unfairly lay out the complementarian position. On page 29, he says that “many complementarians” believe that Paul means that women must be silent in church meetings without giving evidence to exactly who holds this position. It is certainly not the majority position within complementarian understanding. In another place he quotes one complementarian who argues that men are not only stronger but wiser than women, though he does qualify this (55). Later, when presenting his belief of Paul’s understanding of gender, he states that though Paul is espousing “patriarchal conduct, he also affirms equality in a way that provides the grounds for egalitarianism” (68). This is overstates since complementarians also hold that there is equality in Christ, though they may nuance it differently.
In the third chapter of Finally Feminist, Stackhouse answers common arguments against his position from both sides. He does not address, however, why Paul bases his vision of gender on creation order in passages such as 1 Timothy 2. By not addressing this, he does not have to provide evidence for assuming the submission of the wife to the husband is rooted in the fall, not creation. Stackhouse undermines any discussion of creation order by implying that man was created originally androgynous: “previously undivided human” (35), the man “was not obviously sexed before the division into male and female” (66), and “male and female are created at the same time as the image of God together” (67).
In putting forth an egalitarian position on gender roles and distinctions, Stackhouse is bound to have many disagree with him. This book offers helpful insight into arguments against extreme positions on both sides, though not all are valid. When it comes down to it, the problem is not that the two sides have such different positions, but that they are basing their positions in entirely different places.
