INADEQUACIES OF GROOTHUIS’ ARGUMENTS FOR EGALITARIANISM

Jeri Zangmeister Introduction to Apologetics (audit) Fall 2009 Submitted 8-25-10

2

Inadequacies of Groothuis’ Arguments for Egalitarianism

Douglas Groothuis, in Chapter 9 of Truth Decay, defends egalitarianism by arguing that this contemporary view is not necessarily postmodern. He says, “A strong biblical case can be made for gender equality that keeps the notions of biblical inerrancy, objective truth, universal rationality and authorial intent firmly in place” (p. 229). He compares his view to that of “traditionalists” and correctly concludes that both cannot be true. “But it is either one way or the other, not both and not neither (unless a better interpretation C is found later)” (p.232). My purpose in writing this paper is to expose errors in Groothuis’ understanding of key principles in this debate and also to propose a “better interpretation C.” Groothuis defines his position as “those who reject gender-based hierarchy of authority and who hold to the full equality of men and women in marriage, the church and society…” (p. 228). He implies that traditionalists accept a gender-based hierarchy of authority and do not hold to full equality of men and women. Interpretation C accepts a gender-based hierarchy of authority, while still holding on to the full equality of men and women. Let’s begin our discussion with the statements concerning the full equality of men and women. 1

3 Error #1 – Confusion about Equality Underlying Groothuis’ assertions is the idea that full equality can only be realized when there is equality in roles and functions, particularly in authority and church leadership. Accordingly, anything less than equal (or identical) is an evil to be avoided. Genesis 1 states that “In the beginning… God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” The very first mention of mankind in Scripture includes two very clear items: 1) Mankind is created in the image of God, and 2) Mankind is created in two distinct genders - male and female. Therefore, in their humanity, their reflection of the image of God is the same. From the very first mention of mankind in the Scriptures, however, the distinction is made: “male and female he created them.” Because there is a distinction, it follows that male and female are not exactly the same. Groothuis seems to think that this is a distinction without a difference. But, if equality means sameness in everything (according to Groothuis’ definition), then we must conclude that male and female are equal in image, not equal in gender. The distinction of the genders is further clarified in Genesis 2, when the creation of man and woman is described in greater detail. Man is created from the dust: “And the Lord God formed man [Adam] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). After God created man, He put him in the Garden of Eden to work and take care of it. He gave man (alone) the Garden Mandate: “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Then, God told Adam (alone) to name all of the animals, and after that,

4 God created woman. Woman is so special that both a reason and a purpose are given for her creation! Reason? “It is not good for man to be alone.” Purpose? “I will make a helper suitable for him [emphasis mine]” (Gen. 2:18). Then God made the woman. He did not make her from dust. She was different; she was made from the rib of the man: “Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man” (Gen. 2:22). Note the distinction that is clearly stated in the text: man was made from the dust to work the dust (earth) and woman was made from the man to help the man.1 These distinctions are not man-made, nor are they culturally derived. These distinctions are delineated by the wisdom of the One who created man. Male and female are equally in the image of God and equal in their humanity, but they are different in created order, physical origin and purpose. Groothuis does not seem to understand that the “inequalities” between male and female are not bad. The inequalities are God given and therefore, good. In fact, just so we would be sure to understand this, God includes his own assessment of the creation of mankind that it is “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Groothuis falsely assumes that if two things are not identical, then one is superior to the other. That conclusion does not follow. Man and woman are not equal in their ability to bear children. Does this make woman superior because she can? Inequalities are part of the beauty and uniqueness of male and female and contribute to their complementary natures (and therefore, their interdependence). Again, this is good.

1

Barbara K. Mouser, The Five Aspects of Woman, (Waxahachie, TX: International Council for Gender Studies, 2002), 74.

5 Error #2 – Misunderstanding Patriarchy and Male Leadership in the Church Groothuis implies that patriarchy is bad or, at least, inferior to equality in church leadership for men and women. On p.220 he suggests that patriarchy and male leadership are “principled privileging of men over women as part of God’s spiritual order.” He uses Acts 2:17-18 as a proof text to say that this is not how God wants it to be in the New Covenant. The Acts reference is a quote from the prophet Joel that says that the Spirit will be poured out on both men and women and both will prophesy. He also uses Galatians 3:26-28 where Paul says, “There is neither male nor female” to support his view. Contrary to what Groothuis would like us to believe, these scriptures do not negate God’s using men in authority over women in the New Covenant church. Women already prophesied in the Old Testament, e.g. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and others. The point of the Acts reference was to explain to the people that the Spirit of God was being poured out as prophesied in the Old Testament. In Acts, the apostles (note: there were no female apostles) were speaking in tongues not their own. The people said they were drunk. Peter was saying, in effect that, no, they are not drunk, they are filled with the Holy Spirit as prophesied in Joel. The Joel scripture was not being quoted to change an authority structure in the New Testament church; rather, it was quoted to give explanation to the apparent craziness that was going on at Pentecost. It is not difficult to see from the text that in that scene, only the men were prophesying. As for the Galatians reference, again Paul is not establishing a new order in the church where there is no longer any distinction between male and female. Rather, he is stating in this reference that salvation is available to all through faith in Jesus Christ,

6 without distinction. The context of this verse is the Law. In the Old Testament, under the Law, God was approached in His temple by the high priest behind the veil. Next, a court of men was separate from the court of women, and then there was a court for the Gentiles, in that order. This order reflects the progressive revelation of God of Himself to all of mankind, culminating in the salvation of all! Paul refers to these divisions under the Law in his statement – you are all one in Christ Jesus; the curtain is torn, all (Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female) may approach the throne of God. The purpose of these verses in Galatians is to emphasize that salvation is available to all. No one is excluded! The error Groothuis makes is ignoring the context of these verses and importing his own meaning (that there is no longer any prescribed authority structure in the church that includes male leadership or authority). If Groothuis were correct, and there is no longer a prescribed authority structure in the New Testament church that advocates male leadership, then the verses that spell out spiritual order in the church would read quite differently. For example, 1 Timothy would not say “the overseer (or bishop) must be… the husband of but one wife….” (v.3:2) and “…he must manage his own family well…” (v. 4) and Titus 1:6 would not say, “An elder must be…the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe…”. But, as it stands, the weight of scriptural support leans heavily on the side of male leadership. In addition to this, under the New Covenant men are still to be head over their wives. It is stated in Ephesians 5:23, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior,” and in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the

7 woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” The New Testament church still contains a stated order of male leadership and male headship, with Christ as the example. Can women prophesy? Yes. Do women have the Holy Spirit? Yes. Are women saved equally by faith in Jesus Christ? Yes! But authority in the church is still given to men. Contrary to Groothuis’ assertion that patriarchy is merely “a social construct of Greco-Roman society” (p. 229), God himself established patriarchy when he called Abraham from the land of Ur. God established a covenant with Abraham and told him that a son, from his own flesh, would be heir to the Covenant. That son, Isaac, was told that his second-born son would be the one to receive the blessing. That son, Jacob, was renamed Israel and told that his twelve sons would be the heirs of the Covenant. God built a nation through one man for the purpose of bringing blessing to all of mankind. To suggest that patriarchy is merely cultural is to ignore most of Old Testament teaching. Patriarchy and its role cannot be summarily dismissed as a societal form that no longer has any relevance. In fact, God expresses this order of authority, and how much he values it under both the Old and the New Covenant, by inscribing it in the very architecture of the New Jerusalem: “On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel…. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:12, 14). Error #3 – Confusion Regarding the Headship of Man Behind the egalitarian denial of male leadership under the New Covenant is the erroneous idea that man’s rule is a result of sin. Groothuis states, “Genesis 3:16 teaches that after the Fall, man will ‘rule over’ woman. This is not God’s moral command but a consequence of sin having poisoned the world through human rebellion…” (p. 218). To

8 be sure, man’s abuse of his leadership is a result of sin, but it does not follow that all male authority over women is wrong and needs to be overthrown under Christ. Scripture supports the contention that male headship was established before the Fall. This is evident from the fact that man was created first, that man named woman, that woman was created for the man (not vice versa), and that man was given the Garden Mandate and was responsible for it’s being understood by the woman. In addition, man’s headship over woman is compared to Christ’s headship of the church (Eph. 5:23 and 1 Cor.11:3). “God led Adam to accept willingly the opening of his side, experiencing a figurative death, so that his bride could come forth. From the pre-Fall, innocent dawn, God fashioned Adam to picture Christ the Lord, and woman to picture the Church built from his bleeding side.”2 The submission of the wife to her husband is a living demonstration of what the Church’s submission to Christ looks like. If the goal of Christian marriage is to throw off male headship, then the goal of the Church should be to throw off Christ’s headship.3 That makes no sense! Another case for the pre-Fall headship of man is found in the theology of sin and salvation. Romans 5:18 says, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” When Eve sinned, childbearing was cursed and her relationship with her husband was cursed. But, when Adam sinned, the earth was cursed, his work was cursed and death came to all of mankind, including Eve. Death came through one man, Adam (Rom. 5:12). Similarly, life came through one man, Christ. It is through the authority of each man that the consequence —whether sin or salvation – was 2

Ibid., 95.

3

Ibid.

9 carried to the rest of humankind. “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18-19). There is a better way to understand the curse on woman in Genesis 3:16. The second half of the passage states, “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” The word “desire” appears again in Gen. 4:7 where God tells Cain that sin “desires to have you. But you must master it.” The idea is that sin wants to overpower Cain and control his actions. We can see from the verses following 4:7 that Cain did not master the sin, but rather sin had its way and Cain killed his brother Abel.4 In a similar way, women have been cursed with a desire to control or overpower the authority of their husbands, but the husbands will rule over them. Husbands already have the authority given to them by God. Now, because of the curse, there will be a battle for power within the marriage relationship. As a result of the curse, there is conflict and the sinful use of man’s God-given authority. Error #4 -- Misunderstanding Authority and Value Egalitarians, and in fact many Christians, do not understand the harmonious coexistence of headship and equality. They interpret authority as superior and subordination as inferior. This perspective certainly can be observed in our culture. And, granted, abuses of authority also contribute to this perspective. However, the truth about the matter is found – literally -- in God. The most perfect example of headship and equality

4

Ibid., 93-4.

10 can be observed in the Trinity. All three persons of the Trinity are equally God. Scripture, however, says God the Father is the head: “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor.11:3). Even though the Son submits to the Father, and the Father is his head, Christ is no less God. The Son has no less value with God as his head. Father and Son are equal in essence, even though the Father is superior in office. Christ has the privilege of taking the creature’s role, emptying himself and taking the form of a servant, as stated in Philippians 2:5-7, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness [emphasis mine].” This scripture is applicable to all Christians, whether male or female, and encourages all believers to take the servant role. Women, however, have the special joy of identifying with Christ in submission, both in marriage and in submission to male leaders in the church. She takes the creature’s role, as does Christ, and does not grasp at or take hold of (or even insist upon) her equality, even though equality does belong to her. She has the glorious role of emptying herself and living as a servant. Let’s also affirm that men (both as leaders in the church and as husbands) must live like Christ and lay down their lives. While the actual working out of the life of Christ in male and female might look different, it is all to the glory of God and serves to build up the church, Christ’s body. The point, however, is to submit, to serve, to lay down one’s life, and not to grasp at equality for that is of true value, because when we do so, we live as Christ did. And if we continue to read in Philippians 2, verse 9 says,

11 “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name [emphasis mine].” We do not exalt ourselves. If we humbly and obediently take the role that God has given us, HE will be the one to exalt us. Error #5 Misunderstanding Submission The word submission seems to carry all kinds of negative connotations - doormat, inferior, subservient, a behavior that invites abuse, an old-fashioned and out-dated behavioral custom, etc. A proper understanding of submission could bring great freedom and joy to Christian women. Understanding submission in the context of the Trinity, as discussed above, is the first step. It also helps to realize that submission is in service to God, not man. Men in the military understand this kind of distinction. It has been said that a soldier salutes the stripes (the position of authority), not the man wearing the uniform and whether he deserves the respect. If submission to authority is what our Lord God asks of us, then this we must do in service to Him. We must trust God with his way of doing things – his order in the creation – not our own. It is also wrong to go to extremes in our understanding. Submission is not all that is required of women. There are many passages of scripture that balance this aspect of a woman’s feminity. Take 1 Cor. 11 again as an example. After the discussion of the headship of man, the Scripture goes on to talk of the interdependence of male and female in verses 11-12. “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” It is important to remember that if man is the head, then woman is the body. This is explained further in Ephesians 5 when it compares a husband to Christ and his wife to the Church, his body. Verse 28 says husbands ought to

12 love their wives as their own bodies. The relationship is organic: When the husband is committed to receive the response and feedback of his wife, to protect her and be concerned for her every want and need, and when the wife is committed to follow and respect the directives and wishes of her husband, they will experience harmony and unity. You will not see obsequious or tyrannical behavior. The Bible never uses a military metaphor for marriage. That is not the right picture for married authority and response. …The right picture is the organic unity of the body and the head. The picture and the historic truth of Genesis 2 is that woman came from the body of man to be loved by him as his own body.5 While a full discussion of interdependence is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to note that female submission is in this context. Female submission does not mandate or invite male abuse. Egalitarians, such as Groothuis, err when they use verses on interdependence to deny male headship and female submission altogether. In addition, Scripture teaches all believers, whether male or female, to submit to authority. Paul says, “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient… and to show true humility to all men” (Titus 3:1-2). Men must learn to submit to other men who are authorities over them. Submission is part of an authority structure wherever it may be found, and it requires humility. Error #6 – Failure to Understand Paul’s Reason for Not Allowing Women to Teach or Have Authority over Men Concerning 1 Tim. 2:8-15, the oft-disputed passage about the place of women in the church, Groothuis correctly understands that it “implies nothing about the text itself being equivocal. Paul, under infallible divine inspiration had something definite in mind for his original readers, and that principle applies to us today, however different our cultural and ecclesiastical situation might be from that of the early church at Ephesus” (p.

5

Ibid., 80.

13 231). However, he misses the mark when he states, “Egalitarians find a principle concerning the inadvisability of women in that church [emphasis his] teaching and having authority over men, because of some factor not inherent to their gender – such as ignorance or false doctrine” (p. 231). We do not have to wonder, or speculate, what the reason for the prohibition is. The reason is stated explicitly in the very next verse. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner [emphasis mine]” (vs. 12-14). How can egalitarians read those verses and say it was a local issue with a particular church and had nothing to do with something inherent in the gender of the woman? Groothuis himself declares on p. 233 that “the purpose of biblical interpretation is to discover the text’s meaning, not to supply or construct a meaning for the text,” yet this is clearly what he has done. He has imported the idea that women were not allowed to teach because they were ignorant. That is offensive! The first reason given for women not teaching or having authority over men was that Adam was formed first. Paul suggests here that the created order of male and female carries a God-ordained authority structure. There were many things God taught Adam before Eve was on the scene. Adam must have told Eve these things for she knew the admonition not to eat the fruit from the tree in the center of the garden. The second reason given was that Eve was the one deceived. Whether or not women like this quality of their femininity or not, women are more leadable and therefore more deceivable than men.6 The trusting nature and leadability of women is a good 6

Ibid., 99.

14 quality, but it has its downside. Certainly God did not desire to hurt women’s feelings in this matter, but he had to insure that sound doctrine was preserved through the ages. The preservation of orthodoxy requires that men lead the way in teaching in the church. Women may teach women or children, but they do so under the authority of the male leadership in the church. The reason Groothuis defends egalitarians on the issue of women teaching and having authority over men is that “we find women in God-ordained leadership over men throughout scripture” (p. 231). However, he fails to give any specific examples. For the sake of argument, let’s look at a couple of the more prominent women leaders in the Scriptures. Deborah stands out as a woman who “led” the nation of Israel. The scripture says, “Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel…” (Judges 4:4-5). Basically, she sat under a tree and people came to her to have their disputes decided. She is described as a prophetess and a wife.7 Deborah refers to herself as a “mother” in all Israel (Judges 5:7). The definition of a judge is found in Judges 2:16, 18 and was essentially someone God raised up to deliver Israel from its enemies. Deborah knew that Barak was the one to do this and urged him to obey God by fighting the King of Canaan. Barak asked her to come with him and she agreed – but there is no record that she actually engaged in warfare or fought in the battle. She said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the Lord has given Sisera into your hands” (Judges 4:14). Barak led his army of 10,000 men down Mount

7

Barbara K. Mouser, “The Womanliness of Deborah: Complementarian Principles from Judges 45,” (Waxahachie, TX: International Council for Gender Studies, 2003), 4-5.

15 Tabor to fight. After the battle was won (and Sisera was killed by another woman with a tent peg), Deborah and Barak sang, “When the princes in Israel take the lead, when the people willingly offer themselves – praise the Lord!” (Judges 5:2) Part of the joy of this victory was that the men took the lead! It is also interesting to note that in Hebrews 11:32 Barak is listed as the judge – not Deborah. Deborah worked to get Barak to do the job God had given him. Had she been an egalitarian, she would have worked to replace Barak. Deborah, however, did not go to the front lines of the battlefield. She did not wield sword and fight. She used her womanly powers of wisdom and influence to encourage Barak to be strong and assume his Godgiven role.8 Deborah is a unique example of female leadership in the scriptures. She did not “arise” as judge, as is the language for all of the other judges of Israel.9 It appears from the context that because the men were not leading, people came to Deborah for judgement. We do not see other female judges before or after Deborah. We do not see female Kings. No precedent has been set here, no standards have been changed, and no rules have been established. What about Miriam? Didn’t she lead the nation with Moses and Aaron? Well, yes, but let us look at how she led. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, was under Moses’ authority. In fact, her bout with leprosy was a direct result of her trying to place herself on equal footing with Moses. “’Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?’ they [Miriam and Aaron] asked. ‘Hasn’t he also spoken through us?’ ” (Numbers 12:2). God judged her

8

Ibid., 13.

9

Ibid., 4.

16 – and rather severely too – because she attempted to undermine Moses’ authority.10 Her role as a leader was to lead the women and children, not the men (Exodus 15:20-21). Her example of rebellion could not be treated lightly, because of her position and her influence. Aaron, however, was not struck with leprosy. These examples demonstrate that women can have the gift of leadership, but they do not suggest that women leaders “rule over” men in long-standing positions of authority. There are times when in the absence of strong men, women will stand in, but this is not the ideal nor is it the established order of God.11 This is an important distinction. The way Deborah and Miriam used their gifts was powerful and effective. It should be an encouragement to women who desire to serve in the numerous leadership roles that are available to them in the church. It is not forbidden for women to teach. It is not forbidden for women to have authority. The forbidden fruit is teaching or having authority over men, as outlined in 1 Tim. 2:12. Error #7—The Idea that Abuse of Male Authority Means that Authority Should be Shared by Men and Women In the position statement of the Christians for Biblical Equality, when explaining the role of women in the church, community and family, the language in the document often refers to a need to overcome previous abuses. For example, “The church will disassociate itself from the worldly or pagan devices designed to make women feel inferior for being female”.12 Amen to that! What is assumed, however, is that giving 10

Mouser, The Five Aspects, 100.

11

Mouser, “The Womanliness of Deborah,” 14. “Men, Women and Biblical Equality,” (Minneapolis, MN: Christians for Biblical Equality,

12

1989).

17 women men’s roles in the church is the antidote to women’s feeling inferior. Ironically, this notion assumes that men’s roles are, in fact, BETTER! Wouldn’t it be more effective to exalt the importance and value of women’s roles and instruct men not to abuse but rather to love, praise and encourage women? It is the very assumption that men’s roles are better that makes a woman feel inferior. Women are often guilty of perpetuating this idea. If women truly understood and embraced the roles that God has given them, they would likely not feel inferior. Living in concert with God’s design, God’s order and God’s plan brings satisfaction and fulfillment. Although it may not always be easy, women can rest in the hope of hearing their Lord say, “Well done my good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:23). After explaining the deferential relationship between husband and wife in the family, the egalitarian statement affirms that “In so doing, husband and wife will help the Christian home stand against improper use of power and authority by spouses and will protect the home from wife and child abuse that sometimes tragically follows a hierarchical interpretation of the husband’s ‘headship’.”13 Of course the church should stand against the improper use of power and authority and prevent wife and child abuse! Throwing out male headship, however, is not the solution to that problem. Incidentally, throwing out male headship is an improper use of authority. If a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church, then he will not abuse her. He needs to be taught to love as Christ loved, authority intact. It is postmodern to adapt one’s theology to one’s experience. Groothuis mentions that he and his wife “were rightly taught that we should put scripture above experience” 13

Ibid.

18 (p. 234), but it appears that he and other egalitarians like him have allowed modern experiences to influence their theology in this area. They are trying to right what they consider a wrong in the church and family, reflecting the feminist influences in society at large. And, isn’t it just like the age-old tactic of Satan to cast doubt on God’s clear instructions? “Did God really say…?” (Gen. 3:1b)

Conclusion Groothuis fails to provide convincing biblical evidence for what he calls the “evangelical egalitarian” position. Despite his many protestations to the contrary, his views appear to be quite in line with a postmodern approach to the Scriptures. He says, “Egalitarians believe that the structure for marriage and ministry is not provided by male hierarchy but by Christian love…the Sermon on the Mount… and the Ten Commandments” (p.235). In contrast to that, a better interpretation maintains that the structure for marriage and ministry is provided by the Scriptures expressly pertaining to marriage and ministry. This includes any God-given hierarchy of authority, prescriptions for church leadership, the gifts of the Spirit and Christian love, among other things. In the conclusion of Chapter 9, Groothuis says, “Rather than making our differences our starting point, we should emphasize that we are first and foremost creatures before the face of our Creator” (p.238). While we can agree that we are first and foremost creatures, it is naïve and blind to discount that there is a reason we are gendered creatures. Restoring a proper understanding of biblical manhood and womanhood is the solution to the problems that the egalitarians are trying to solve. God’s way is the best way! Using the whole counsel of God, we must thoroughly understand equality,

19 authority, headship and submission. We must see and promote the dignity of both male and female. We must affirm both the equality of man and woman and the value of their complementary roles and strengths, working together to build up the body of Christ, just as Adam and Eve worked together in harmony in the Garden (that is until Eve took the lead….)!