Greg Anderson

I think a lot of this stuff goes back to the old “descriptive” vs “prescriptive” arguments. Wayne Grudem, who is known in some circles as “the godfather of complementarianism”, maintains that since Huldah spoke to just five guys and that it was done privately and not to Israel as a corporate assembly, it was ok in God’s eyes. Grudem also maintains that there is a sharp distinction between the role of prophesying and teaching among God’s people both in the Old and New Testaments. Sharp distinction? How so? As Kevin Giles has pointed out, both scripture and human utterances when under the Holy Spirit are the very words of God, and to elevate one above the other is special pleading. Let’s get down to brass tacks here. What this whole controversy revolves around is Paul’s famous first letter to his protege (Timothy) in Ephesus. If it is a descriptive refutation of false teaching, that is, the Apostle’s response to a specific situation in the Ephesian congregation, then we can move on with confidence that the reformation did not end with Luther and Calvin, and that it is ongoing, with us as an organic unity. To say that it is prescriptive (1 Tim. 2:12) is to say that Paul is now our new Moses, our new law-giver, and that Christ’s efficacy at the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are only partially enfranchised in the Body of Christ. I for one, flatly reject the prescriptive interpretation.