"Introduction" by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Ronald W. Pierce

In the Introduction to their edited volume, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Groothuis identify some of the convictions and commitments that undergird the overall position of their book, including this important claim:

Biblical egalitarianism (as opposed to any brand of secular or pagan feminism) is biblically based and kingdom focused. It does not rest its arguments on secular political movements or a theologically liberal denial of the Scripture's full and objective truth and authority for all time. Moreover, biblical egalitarians apply the basic historical-grammatical method of interpretation and the best principles of theologizing to their task. They make no appeal to "women's consciousness" as normative; neither do they feel free to dispense with or underplay any aspect of sacred Scripture, since it is all equally God-breathed and profitable for all of life (2 Tim 3:15-17) (14).

Upon reading the commitment to full biblical truthfulness and authority expressed by these words, biblical complementarians (as the movement has come to be known over the past two decades, and as defined and defended in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ¹) can only rightly respond with a hearty "Amen." Without any hesitation or qualification, complementarians likewise express their zealous and heart-felt commitment to the full inspiration, inerrancy, and divine authority of the whole of the Scriptures. So, it is clear from the outset of this book that the debate is over the actual content of the teaching of Scripture itself. "Agreed!" we say with excitement to our egalitarian brothers and sisters, "this debate with you is over, and should be over, just what Scripture teaches about the nature and roles of men and women."

Given this common commitment to the authority of Scripture, we would hope that both sides, then, would say, "May the best man [sic?] win." Tat is, may the side that shows most clearly and convincingly just what Scripture teaches be vindicated; may the side that defends and displays most closely the truthfulness of Scripture itself be shown to be correct; may the side which most fully honors the truth and wisdom of Scripture's own teaching triumph in this debate; and may that position which accords most closely with Scripture itself prevail in our lives, our homes, and our churches. Because our common commitment is to Scripture's authority and not to our own views, per se, those on both sides should pray and long for the day when one view-the view most fully expressive of Scripture's truthful teaching-is embraced fully and broadly among Christians and Christian communities.

Some might think at this point, "but is it necessary to pit one view against the other? That is, might there not be some via media, some ‘middle position,' which incorporates the best of both views?" Again, it is refreshing to read that Pierce and Groothuis dismiss this "possibility" just as much as complementarians do. They write,

Though we speak strongly in favor of unity, points of agreement and dialogue, it must be noted at the start that we see no middle ground on this question. The notion of complementarity is helpful and must be pursued, but two essential questions remain. Are all avenues of ministry and leadership open to women as well as men, or are women restricted from certain roles and subordinated to male authority on the basis of gender alone? Likewise, do wives share equally with husbands in leadership and decision making in marriage, or does the husband have a unique responsibility and privilege to make final decisions, based on his gender alone? The answers to these questions will continue to distinguish clearly between the male leadership and gender equality positions (17).

Yes, indeed: There is no middle ground. And we complementarians agree. Since the egalitarian and complementarian positions are mutually exclusive in their central claims, as indicated by the two questions just cited, and since both of two mutually exclusive positions cannot both be correct, then it follows, as Pierce and Groothuis have asserted, that there is no middle ground. Either one position is fundamentally correct and the other is fundamentally wrong, or both positions are fundamentally wrong; but it cannot be the case that both positions are fundamentally correct. Therefore, no "middle position" that seeks to bring the "best of both" together is possible.² The nature of the debate, then, is clear: What is the one position of Scripture's teaching that most closely reflects God's own understanding, as presented in divinely inspired and authoritative Scripture, of the nature and roles of men and women?

Having established that the debate between complementarians and egalitarians is most centrally about what Scripture teaches, and having agreed also that there is no middle position possible, I now wish to suggest the following: Because the complementarian view, in one form or another, has been the church's long-standing position and clear majority view throughout its entire history, and because the Bible's own statements, when taken prima facie and interpreted in the most natural ways of understanding their meanings, support the complementarian position, the burden of proof to the contrary rests squarely on the egalitarians. Tat is, both church history and natural interpretive meanings of biblical texts relating to roles of men and women would give the stronger starting position, as it were, to the complementarian view. Readers of Discovering Biblical Equality, then, should look carefully to see whether such a compelling case is offered that its view of "biblical equality" of male-female roles must replace the normative position that has prevailed previously. Certainly this is possible, to be sure. But unless we find such a compelling case, we simply should not desert Scripture's apparent meaning as understood throughout the history of the church.

As one reads Discovering Biblical Equality, one should keep in mind, particularly, the claim of the editors that biblical egalitarians simply do not "feel free to dispense with or underplay any aspect of sacred Scripture, since it is all equally God-breathed and profitable for all of life (2 Tim 3:15-17)" (14). Since they claim to uphold the full inspiration and authority of Scripture, this claim is important. And so, we should consider how well this claim is worked out in dealing with relevant passages from Scripture that pertain to the questions before us. Do these egalitarian writers uphold their stated commitment not to dispense with or underplay any aspect of sacred Scripture? Should this not be a question thoughtful readers would have in mind as they consider the argumentation throughout Discovering Biblical Equality? And if it is the case that some pertinent scriptural teaching is underplayed or dispensed with, does this not call into question whether this egalitarian proposal can possibly carry the weight necessary to supplant the church's historic complementarian view?

Consider with me one example where the thoughtful reader of Discovering Biblical Equality might wonder whether Scripture's teaching has been accounted for adequately. As one reads Paul's and Peter's admonitions that are directed specifically to husbands and wives, one notes that there is a particular imperative given to wives in each of such cases, regardless of the larger context. In each case, wives are told one thing, the same thing, in all four of these New Testament passages: They are told to "submit to" or "be subject to" or be "submissive to" their husbands. Here they are for the reader to see:³

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24).

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Col 3:18).

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled (Titus 2:3-5).

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives-when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external-the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing-but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening (1 Pet 3:1-6).

It would seem a simple and yet a highly significant observation to make, from these texts, that every single direct imperative and admonition to wives requires of them the same responsibility: Besides other things that are said to them, they are commanded in every case to submit to their husbands. The force of this point in the current debate is strong indeed, and it certainly is relevant to the question of whether the egalitarian position treats every aspect of Scripture fully and does not diminish or disregard any of it. The fact that four different New Testament letters contain this one common command to wives each time they are addressed specifically, and that both Paul and Peter share in common this same message and emphasis, and that the command is made to wives in different churches and different cultural settings, would incline one to conclude that this must be among the most important aspects of a wife's relationship to her husband. To miss this is to miss something highly significant about being a wife, as God intends it. And certainly, as Paul develops the point in Ephesians 5, the significance of the wife's submission can be understood more fully because God intends her submission to her husband to be a picture of the church's submission to Christ.

But can one rightly say that Discovering Biblical Equality fails to "dispense with or underplay" this aspect of sacred Scripture? So obvious yet forceful a point as this surely would not be overlooked or its significance unaccounted for in a book of this size, would it? I leave it to the reader to ask this question and many more like it: Is the clear meaning and force of Scripture explained and accounted for by the authors of this volume? And, do they make a case that would challenge the church's historic complementarian position? Because this debate is about what Scripture teaches, we pray that the position which most faithfully, clearly, compellingly, and accurately explains and defends that inspired teaching will be shown to be right. For the sake of the church, and for the glory of God, may the best man win!