“‘Equal in Being, Unequal in Role’: Exploring the Logic of Woman's Subordination” (Ch 18) by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
Dorothy Kelley Patterson
What is the Battle?
Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, not only the author of the chapter under review but also one of the editors of Discovering Biblical Equality, sets the tone for her chapter as well as for the volume as a whole in an interview in which she brushed aside "exegeting a few controversial biblical proof texts . . . or proof words" and indicated that she wanted to show that "biblical equality makes sense from every angle."1 In so doing she immediately puts herself at odds with a large segment of the evangelical world who would see careful exegesis of pertinent texts, together with linguistic analysis of the words within those texts, as the bedrock of any search for understanding what God is saying in setting his guidelines and establishing his mandate for women and men in how they should live, serve, and interact with one another. The issue remains that divine guidelines and paradigms must be primary and foremost and the molding factors for individual choices.
Groothuis must be an extraordinary woman. According to her on-line biography, with a B.S. degree in psychology, she has been lecturing at Denver and Fuller seminaries, while through personal study equipping herself to do research and write in biblical studies and theology, disciplines other than those she formally studied. In the author information of her publications she is identified as "a free-lance writer and editor." Perhaps her decision to change venue from her formal study to her avocation of writing on topics in theology and philosophy accounts for the lack of biblical and theological references in her allusions to passages of Scripture and her lack of direct interaction with those whom she considers her opponents.
Interestingly, Groothuis not only defines the terms of her own position, but she also redefines the terms describing the positions she is critiquing. Such casuistry may give one a bit of an edge when trying to defeat an opponent and her position, but it does smack of a less
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 73
than scholarly approach to academic debate. The pressure is then upon the reader not only to read what Groothuis has written but also to be careful to read the words of those whose positions she seems to be maligning and systematically redefining in the process. For example, in footnote 25 of her chapter, she alludes to Piper and Grudem as arguing that "just as the animals were to be submissive to the man, so was the woman." Here are the words Piper and Grudem actually penned,
The context makes it very unlikely that helper should be read on the analogy of God's help, because in Genesis 2:19-20 Adam is caused to seek his "helper" first among the animals. But the animals will not do, because they are not "fit for him." So God makes woman "from man." Now there is a being who is "fit for him," sharing his human nature, equal to him in Godlike personhood. She is infinitely different from an animal, and God highlights her value to man by showing how no animal can fill her role.2
Misrepresenting the positions of one's opponent is a less than convincing method of gaining ascendancy or even achieving the coveted equality!
What Are the Presuppositions?
Since Groothuis has written a lengthy chapter, a brief review cannot begin to interact with her litany of views and positions, much less her misinterpretations of complementarian positions, such as the example previously given. Perhaps the best starting point for evaluation would be to identify as much as possible the presuppositions of Groothuis in contrast to my own. Groothuis is seemingly comfortable being identified as an egalitarian since she is on the Board of Reference for Christians for Biblical Equality and would, I presume, agree with their statement of faith. Writings from her own pen in no way seem to move her out of the mainstream of egalitarian ideology. On the other hand, I was on the founding board for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and remain on its Board until now. My evaluation is from the standpoint of a complementarian. When Groothuis redefines complementarity ex nihilo without regard to the carefully prepared documents of the CBMW founders, even the most casual reader must admit that this revisionism makes any meaningful interaction almost impossible.
Groothuis and I embrace a completely different presupposition on anthropology or the divine plan for manhood and womanhood. But, even more important is the presupposition from which we are working respectively with reference to Scripture. I am assuming that Groothuis, as many egalitarians, would embrace inerrancy. I certainly hold that every syllable of God's Word is true. Here we find a real dilemma in that logical consistency demands that any belief system does not violate the principles of traditional logic, a point Groothuis tries to use in marshaling the law of noncontradiction to her aid, "A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time in the same respect" (304) or more commonly expressed, "A contradictory system cannot express a viable way of life." Certainly Scripture will not express two contradictory positions-even in two different locations since all of Scripture is
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 74
God-breathed. Perhaps the difference in our presuppositions is pinpointed in the fact that I also believe Scripture is sufficient-timeless and timely all at once. If, however, Groothuis refuses to exegete Scripture, what difference will it make if her experience trumps or reinterprets Scripture?
Groothuis tries to juxtapose two clear theological truths: equality and subordination. She acknowledges the truth that women and men are equal ontologically and spiritually, but then she tries to interpret this principle to make it conform to contemporary culture by suggesting that a truth from God must be compatible with logical human reasoning. She posits that for complementarians to suggest ontological equality but positional subordination in biblically dictated areas is illogical. But, complementarians see no contradiction. They believe that the language of Scripture showing both equality and difference simply unite in a complementary way. For example, the phrase used by the writer of Genesis (Heb., ‘ezer kenegdo, literally "helper like unto himself "), defines the way the woman functions or how she does her assignment, i.e., as a helper, while the rest of the phrase makes clear that she is equal, like, and in the image of God just as the man from whom and for whom she was created (Gen 1:27; 2:18-23).
What Are the Rules of Engagement?
Groothuis seemingly refuses to engage on the issue important to complementarians, i.e., the text of Scripture-what does God say? Rather, she insists on redefining complementarity, a word she considers ambiguous, even though the word was carefully coined to express a view of equality and oneness marked by cooperation and interdependence as found in the biblical mandate. She asserts that she has chosen the term "traditionalism," along with "patriarchy" to identify the position opposite to egalitarianism, and one must leave to Groothuis herself whether or not these choices were meant to be pejorative, based on modern perceptions of these words, which have been hijacked and reprogrammed by feminists. On the other hand, she seems quick to attempt to add to her egalitarianism a component of "complementarianism."3
How are these terms defined by an objective dictionary? "Traditionalism is a system holding that all knowledge is derived from original divine revelation and then transmitted by tradition."4 It is further nuanced with the descriptor "strongly favoring retention of the existing order: conservative, orthodox, right."5I find no problem with this label for someone who believes that God imparted absolute truth in Scripture and that he has given enough in his inspired Word that any serious seeker can find him and can know how to live. And if one has this truth, does it not follow that this truth can be transmitted from generation to generation?
"Patriarchy [Gk. patria, "father," and arche, "beginning" or "rule"] is a social system [going back to the beginning of civilization] in which the father is the head of the family and men (i.e., the fathers) have authority over women and children."6 Interestingly whether one takes the meaning to be "beginning with fathers" or "rule of fathers," the description fits what is found in the creation order and recorded in Scripture. As has often been the case, feminists have revised meanings of words as well as the facts of history. In the case of patriarchy, modern dictionaries note the meaning
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 75
accorded to this word in "gender politics as referring to any form of social power given disproportionately to men" and consequently, as noted in the dictionary, feminist writers argue "that it is necessary and desirable to get away from this model in order to achieve gender equality." Again, the dictionary notes that "these writers are oversimplifying the complexities of society, or that such gender roles are not necessarily harmful. . ." and the critics of such feministic tampering with the language and history note that feminists are "trying to replace patriarchy with matriarchy," which should be, if anything, "an equally harmful system."7
Whatever the intentions of Groothuis, I am not offended by being labeled a traditionalist or patriarchalist, if commonly understood and officially recorded historical definitions are used. However, I will not give up the identification as a "complementarian," which also clearly identifies my position, nor will I allow the term to be hijacked without my own personal protest by any who seek to cover their own diametrically opposite positions by using a word warmly embraced by evangelicals, especially when in so doing the true definition is distorted.
Groothuis seems comfortable with the egalitarian label, and the dictionary defines egalitarian as "affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people" or more simply "a person who believes in the equality of all people."8 Strict egalitarianism has run into difficulty along the way, such as in material and political egalitarianism as within communism and liberation theology. The Evangelical Women's Caucus split in 1986 over the lesbian influence and subsequent efforts by a lesbian minority of egalitarians. This incursion found its way into this volume under review, and any movement away from clear role distinctions grounded in the creation order makes it more difficult to avoid attacks on heterosexuality, which is not only normative but also divinely mandated. Perhaps this liability explains why some egalitarians, such as Stanley Grenz and Groothuis herself, have tried to refine egalitarianism by linking it with complementarianism. If I were to follow the lead of Groothuis in trying to reframe the egalitarian position in relationship to my own complementarianism, I would couple egalitarianism with "anarchy" (Gk. anarchia, "without a leader" or "without head or chief "). The definition suggests "absence of any form of political authority" or a world in which every man or woman is a law unto himself (Judg 21:25). The definition continues that there is the "absence of any cohesive principle, such a common standard or purpose."9 I choose not to identify Groothuis or CBE as anarchists because of the misunderstanding of language technicalities in the perception of most people. I simply ask for the same courtesy on the part of egalitarians. Perception and understanding among the general public demands a certain care and restraint in how one presents her own position and even more so in how one presents the position of one who differs. Perhaps the safest and most appropriate plan is for egalitarians to define themselves and support their platform from the biblical text and then engage complementarians in the text of Scripture.
Groothuis identifies her hermeneutic as much by what she does not cite in her chapter as what she does write. In an earlier monograph she says, "This book arises from my own experiences . . . and from the sampling of similar stories that I have heard from other Christian women. . . . Experience . . . has a way of
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 76
nudging one's mind into explorations of different perspectives and new alterna-tives."10 Groothuis alludes to Scripture, saying that "experience is illuminated by the truth of God's Word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit."11 Nevertheless, experience and contemporary culture appear to take precedence over scriptural exegesis.
Here lies her impasse with complementarians: Groothuis is seeking to enhance her experience, thereby seeking new ideas and different ways of living for personal fulfillment and freedom in her service to the Lord; on the other hand, many women and men, as I, are looking for the truth of Scripture and obedience to the word of God. Passion for personal fulfillment and the liberty to follow the way that seems most compatible with giftedness and calling is not the motivating factor. They are looking for the narrow path (Matt 7:13-14), the dying to self (Matt 10:39), the giving up of personal satisfaction and the opportunity to serve the Lord on his terms however incongruous they may seem in the modern era (Prov 3:5-6). Of course, that narrow way with its clearly marked boundaries may seem to be characterized by what Groothuis describes as a "maze of rules and restrictions."12 Yet many believers do not feel "cruelly" forced behind certain lines, for Jesus himself set the example of "delight[ing] to do his [the Father's] will" (Ps 40:8).
More preposterous and incongruous is the way Groothuis speaks of "an agenda the church has imported from modern culture" when feminism, according to recorded historical facts, is indeed the ideology overwhelming this generation. It is manifesting itself in the church as "biblical" feminism or egalitarianism. There are changes sweeping the evangelical world, and they do indeed fit neatly with the culture. But is this cultural revolution imposing itself upon Scripture to mold God's word into what is relevant for the age? God has spoken clearly that his children are not to be "squeezed into the world's mold" (Rom 12:2), but rather they should be "transformed" so that they can transform the world.13
While shunning the obvious struggle between orthodoxy and heresy (on issues such as the Trinity) and between the biblical (which assumes a natural reading of the whole of Scripture) and secular (which by coincidence fits the feministic agenda of the age perfectly), Groothuis is absolutely correct in seeing that the main battleground between egalitarians and complementarians is theological and hermeneutical disagreement.14
Groothuis does bring her reader to the continental divide in the issue of how men and women are to relate to one another in the home and in the church-where orthodoxy (what is right to believe) meets orthopraxy (what is right to do). From her position as an egalitarian, to be consistent in making her case that there can be no differentiation in the roles of a husband and wife in the home or in the assignments of the man and woman in the church, she must establish the premise that any differentiation means a corresponding distinction in worth or value between them. Tat means tampering with the Trinity since she must also establish that God the Father and God the Son are not only ontologically equal but also equal, and the same, in their respective roles, which would exclude the Son's voluntary subordination to the Father.
Interestingly in centuries of church history, the Son's eternal subordination to the Father has not been questioned by the mainstream of orthodoxy, but objections to this doctrine (beginning in the
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 77
fourth century with Arius who asserted a natural inequality within the triunity known as Arianism-a clearly identified heresy) have come to the forefront in the modern era through the ideologically motivated egalitarian discussions.15 These discussions are not emerging from careful exegesis of the biblical texts or from research into the documents of church history. Any excursus into Scripture or into the annals of church history would demonstrate that the Arian heresy-or "emphatic subordination"-is the denial that the Son and the Father share the same essence or nature. On the other hand, the understanding of "economic subordination" or the subordination of mission or task was officially adopted as the orthodox position of the church from the fourth century (at the Council of Nicea) until now. The Son's obedience did not denigrate him or lessen his worth but exalted him and glorified the Father (Phil 2:5-11). Viewing a person's worth solely according to his role and perceived status in society not only is not biblically based but also is a poor criterion for interpersonal relationships. Who I am ultimately is not determined by what I can do. My ultimate worth is found in who I am in Christ-a woman created in his image. I may be unable to do certain tasks physically, emotionally, socially, or even spiritually (because of biblical boundaries), but God is interested in my obedience-to his written word more than to what I feel he is revealing to my own understanding.
How Do You Evaluate the Historical Record?
Groothius makes grand sweeping statements for which she supplies little or no evidence. She suggests that "for most of church history women were denied equal status with men because it was held that women were simply inferior persons by God's design."16 The evidence for such universal assessment is not compelling. But, even if it were, in the biblical record (which is not addressed in her chapter), does Paul or Peter or Jesus Himself suggest that women are inferior? All are cognizant of the creation order and couch their teaching within its boundaries. To place the theologians or free-lance writers of the twentieth or twenty-first century, or even of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, above the Church Fathers and the Reformers seems a bit presumptuous even if you put aside certain passages of Scripture.17
What appears to be assigning inferiority to women may be merely the suggestion of God-ordained differences between women and men, e.g., in the physical area. Groothuis may also interpret exegesis of a text discussing the divine assignment to women in an author like Clement as making them inferior when, for example, Clement was very clear in presenting his ideas about the importance of a woman's work in the home so much so that he noted she should give her best energies to that task and be in subordination to her husband. In so doing, he made no distinction in spiritual responsibilities. He did see a clear division in her sphere of human activity or function. He expressed the woman's position as "inferior" to the man's because of that position as one of rank under the leadership and headship of her husband.18
Critics reveal their own presuppositions when they indicate that a woman's worth is tied to her "authority" and the recognition of that authority by equity in household chores and in what she is allowed to do in the church. A careful examination of most of what is found from the pens of the Church Fathers
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 78
does indeed confirm the functional subordination of the woman, but it is for her good and not for her hurt; and more important it is based upon careful exegesis of the Scripture. There are also numerous letters of praise about women from the Fathers.
In the New Testament, Phoebe is described as a "servant" and "helper" (Rom 16:1-2), and "older" or spiritually mature women are identified as teachers of younger women or women who are new in the faith (Titus 2:3-5). Women are described as wives and mothers and daughters, and then there are clear instructions on what it means to be a wife, mother, or daughter. So subordination describes how a woman does her assignment in relation to a man; it is in itself not a task she performs. It is the pathway to obedience, and the obedience is clearly to God even though he may evaluate that obedience by how a woman relates to her husband or to those in authority in the church.
"Rhetorical decoys" are tools used to pull attention away from the plain reading and natural understanding of Scripture. Such human logic and eloquent discourse may appear to resolve the conflict between egalitarian philosophy of what is appropriate for modern culture and an enlightened society on the one hand and a complementarian understanding of what is written in Scripture to be understood as timeless principles above evaluation molded by personal experience on the other. Timeless principles are not reinterpreted by personal experience, but they become timely ways of understanding the principles embedded in biblical truth and molding your life in obedience to those principles regardless of how irrelevant they may appear to the logic of the modern mind.
Groothuis caps her argument with a clear statement reflecting again her own presuppositions: "Not even God can make a logical contradiction true. And if it can't be true, it can't be biblical."19 But Groothuis has failed to show that the complementarian position is contrary to logic. What is in view here are not the principles of Aristotelian logic, but Groothuis's understanding of those. Appropriately, one is reminded of Isaiah's judgment, "‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the Lord" (Isa 55:8). Looking for emotional impressions or humanly reasoned conclusions is sublimated to the task of finding a sure word from God, which you first embrace by faith and then learn its lessons on the road of obedience.
In interacting with such scholarly theologians as Grudem and Piper, Schreiner, Baldwin, Köstenberger, Ortlund, Knight, Neuer, and Hurley who base their discussions and interpretations upon a careful exegesis of the text, Groothuis would do well to engage them with straightforward exegesis. Debate demands that you discuss the same topics from the same general framework and using clearly defined language in the classical sense. Any individual can find a way to substantiate almost any claim if allowed to redefine terms, revise history, reimagine doctrinal tenets proven over the centuries, and trump hermeneutical understandings with personal experience and cultural relevance.
Even if the question of one's experience is broached, the results are different from those Groothuis expects. Groothuis asks, "Why should an equal person be excluded from certain key areas of human activity and ministry?"20 The first problem is to define key areas. I have chosen first and foremost to be a homemaker (although my academic credentials and
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 79
perhaps even my giftedness and certainly my opportunities might open many more options to me). Is this chosen "position" or "role" or "assignment" not a key area? Why? Is to provide a place of comfort and nurture for my family and any others God brings to my path not important in the overall schema; to help my husband with a myriad of tasks and to have reared my children up in the Lord and to invest now in my grandchildren-who would dare say that homemaking and family are not key areas! And who would suggest that such an assignment becomes a key area because I chose it!
God established the home and relationships therein from creation. He does not leave to us important decisions like how we are to glorify him, and we do not select the choices that qualify us for obedience! Homemaking is a key area because God made it so with the many ministries that spring from this accepted task. I did not "feel" called to do home-making. I honored the biblical mandate set for women who choose to marry: I became a helper to my husband, and I accepted the assignment of managing my household and nurturing my children. However, if I had not married, I do not believe for a minute that I would then have carte blanche to do anything I was gifted or trained to do in the kingdom of Christ. I am still under mandate to determine where I might serve within the boundaries established by God himself.
Groothuis misrepresents the complementarian position by alleging that complementarians believe that "by virtue of her female being, a woman is fit to be subject to man's will and unfit to exercise her own will with the freedom and authority accorded a man" (303). This distortion of the biblical text blurs the matter considerably. First, as a female, a woman is in the image of God just as the man. This ontological statement is the basis from which one can move forward with further discussion. Egalitarians and complementarians are agreed on this point-why try to make them seem at opposite ends of the spectrum? This point is not debatable, at least among members of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and in the published works of complementarians now in the marketplace. Second, a woman does indeed exercise her own will. Biblical submission calls for voluntarily choosing to submit. R. T. France suggests a more etymological translation of the Greek verb: as "order oneself under," based on the root tass, which is concerned with "order" and on the regular usage of the Greek middle voice, which usually carries a reflexive sense.21 Thus, the choice has nothing to do with being "fit" or "unfit" but with being obedient to God. Third, freedom and authority are tricky concepts in the biblical context if you are trying to understand these terms in a secular world setting as opposed to a spiritual framework. Freedom, according to Scripture, is not the liberty to do what you choose any more than authority is the right to do what you feel you should do. Both of these terms are limited by putting aside personal rights and accepting the place God has given. The greatest freedom is in bondage to Christ, including the mandates he has given on how men and women are to live in relation to one another, and exercising headship with authority that is given by him alone. There is indeed a contrast between the ontological understanding of personal worth and being on one hand and the teleological understanding, which presents the divine design or purpose for that being, on the other.
JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 80
A Concluding Word
Groothuis seems determined to set imaginary boundaries beyond what is recorded in Scripture, perhaps from lack of a careful exegetical study or maybe even in an effort to make those boundaries appear so oppressive that they should be ignored as "illogical." Consider again her attempt to shackle complementarians with a position that they interpret Scripture to mean that men are "fit" to do certain things that women are not "deemed fit to do." Not only is this insulting to me as a complementarian who happens to be a woman, but it is to suggest a careless interpretation of Scripture. For the record, here is the basis for a complementarian view of Scripture:
(1) Women and men are created in the image of God(Gen 1:27) and are "join theirs" in their spiritual inheritance (1 Pet 3:7) and without distinction "in Christ Jesus"(Gal 3:28).
(2) Women and men are created with a divine purpose. In their relationship one with the other they are to glorify God and provide a tool for God to reveal himself to his creation. Before the woman was created, the man was created and given a clear assignment, which included spiritual leadership since he was entrusted with the clear instruction on life and death(Gen 2:15-17); the woman was created from the man and for the man to be a helper to him in his responsibility (Gen 2:18); the man was clearly identified as the head or leader (1 Cor 11:3); his headship was defined as well (Eph 5:25-29); women also have been given instruction on how they do their assignment, with a gentle and quiet spirit (1 Pet 3:3-4).
A beautiful plan-both equality and complementarity are clearly included.
Endnotes
1 "Biblical Gender Equality: Complementarity With out Hierarchy Interview," IVP Academic Alert 14 (Winter 2005): 1.
2 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 87.
3 Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women (Grand Rapids: Baker 1997), 15.
4 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed. (Houghton Mifflin, 2000).
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Groothuis, Good News for Women, 11.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., 12.
13 Phillips' translation of Rom 12:2.
14 Groothuis, Good News for Women, 15.
15 See articles by Stephen Kovach and Peter Schemm, "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999): 461-76; and Bruce Ware, "Tampering with the Trinity: Does the Son submit to His Father?" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001): 4-12.
16 "Biblical Gender Equality," 3.
17 See Charles Ryrie, The Role of Women in the Church (Chicago: Moody, 1970), 53-122 for an excellent balanced discussion of the writings of the Church Fathers on women. See also my dissertation, Aspects of a Biblical Theology of Womanhood, (D.Theol. diss., University of South Africa, 1998), 23-30. If you really want to examine the subject, read the Church Fathers in their own words-not a quote from them here and there.
18 Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.10 (Ante- Nicene Fathers 2:283).
19 "Biblical Gender Equality," 3.
20 Ibid.
21 R. T. France, Women in the Church's Ministry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 33-34. See also my ex tended discussion in my Aspects of a Biblical Theology of Womanhood, 192-95.
