This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www

This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www.rethinkingfaith.com, where other articles on similar themes are available.

SIX QUESTIONS?

Reflecting on the Debate

In posing his six questions, has Dr. Wayne Grudem stumped egalitarian scholars? Do they not have the answers? Or is it that they have already given the answers and don't have the time to keep repeating themselves?

One place where many of these questions are answered is in "The Classical Concept of Head as 'Source'," a paper Catherine Clark Kroeger presented at the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in 1986 and which is reprinted in Gretchen Gaebelein Hull's excellent book, Equal to Serve (Baker) as an appendix. It seems to me that this presented many references that should satisfy Grudem's request for examples.

In addition, Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian presented a second paper at the same 1986 ETS meeting. "Case-Study of an Eisegetical Frabrication: Wayne Grudem's Treatment of Kephale in Ancient Greek Texts" directly addressed 49 examples cited by Grudem of kephale used in biblical and extra-biblical literature (19 non-biblical, 18 from Greek translations of the Old Testament, and 12 from the New Testament). Bilezikian took each reference one at a time and argued effectively and convincingly that in each case "source" made better sense than Grudem's rendering of "rule" or "authority." This is why it is all the more amazing that Grudem should claim: 1) that no ancient evidence exists to support reading kephale as "source," and 2) that no egalitarian has yet to offer an answer to such questions. A news article in Christianity Today from that year confirms that Dr. Grudem was at that meeting (he's even shown in a photograph). Has he and everyone else at CBMW developed a memory loss? After all, this was the meeting that precipitated CBE and CBMW forming as organizations.

I have been asking myself why the "complementarian" fixates on the word kephale. I believe there are two reasons. One: Of course it must really bug him to be called a heretic, which is the implication the Drs. Kroeger and Bilezikian have raised by showing the connection between this controversy and the Trinity (see for example, Bilezikian's "Historical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), 40/1 (March 1997) 57-68, which is also reprinted as an appendix in Bilezikian's latest book, Community 101 (Zondervan).

But there is a second reason that also explains the complementarian preoccupation with authentein. Without interpreting kephale and authentein to mean authority, there are no other passages to turn to that would seem explicitly to grant implicit authority to males over females. It seems to me there is a weakness here that the reader would do well to explore, especially in light of 1 Corinthians 7:4-5, which is the only place where the usual and expected word for authority (exousia) occurs in reference to the male-female relationship, and where the authority described is obviously mutual.

When it comes to defining "headship," the strongest arguments for me come not from extrabiblical references but from Paul's own explanations and elaborations about kephale, as Kroeger discussed in her 1986 paper. As Dr. Mark Strauss pointed out in his recent critique of the Colorado Springs Guidelines for Bible Translation, ultimately words must be understood in their own contexts. Even if Grudem were correct that no other ancient author used the word kephale to refer to a non-authoritative person or an equal, that would not rule out the possibility that Paul coined or gave the word a new, specialized meaning that can be established from Paul's own comments about it. Confirmation from extrabiblical sources, especially from early church leaders, can be helpful. But I wonder how authoritative they should be, especially when there is so much textual evidence available within the Scriptures themselves to guide us. If the Scriptures are supposed to be our ultimate authority, then the most troubling thing about all of Grudem's questions is that they look for authoritative clarity from outside the canon.

I am also wondering what would happen if we followed Grudem's reasoning and could not find in extrabiblical sources any place where a person was called a logos, or where three persons were said to be one, or where leaders were commanded to be servants. Would this then cast doubt on our interpretation of the New Testament regarding Christ the Word, the Trinity, or servant leadership? And if we did find such references, would that necessitate understanding the New Testament to be using those terms in the same way as the secular sources? Would the Trinity be three-in-one in the same sense that some pagan author used the phrase (like 3-in-1 Motor Oil)? And when the New Testament uses the term "leader," should we understand that word to mean what it meant in extrabiblical sources, or should we understand it as Christ redefined it (cf Mt 20:25-28)? I would argue for the latter.

What I'm saying is that Grudem's argument is flawed in all six cases. (Notice, it's the same flawed argument repeated six times.) 1. His argument overlooks the possibility that the New Testament would present an original understanding or redefinition of commonly used words; and 2. It fails to consider that words function within their own contexts.

For example: I think it is entirely possible and likely that first-century readers of Paul's letters would have thought of husbands as rulers and authoritative heads. That was the mentality to be expected, given the fallen mindset they were being called out from. But Paul knew, as Kroeger pointed out in her 1986 paper, that head could also mean source. So Paul defines and describes the head in terms of source in Ephesians 4:15-16 and Colossians 2:19. The idea of source is also employed in 1 Corinthians 11:8,9,11,12, where Paul is discussing headship. And his development of the head concept in Ephesians 5 therefore fits with the source model. So what if this is an insight and approach original to Paul? If we can point to extrabiblical references, fine; we should do so. But even if we couldn't, this is hardly a reason to rule out Paul's own explanations of how he understood headship. The Bible is our authority, not extrabiblical texts.

I believe similar answers can be given to each of Grudem's six questions. In answer to Grudem's request for specific extrabiblical references, I refer you to the articles I've mentioned above, where numerous examples are given. This suggests to me that either Grudem possesses a dearth of knowledge regarding classical literature, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting what he knows is the case. It is especially troubling that he repeats questions knowing that these articles exist and have answered the questions that he claims have gone unanswered.

But classical and extra-biblical literature aside, I think we should remain focused on the real issues: 1.) that this is how the New Testament interprets itself; 2.) that the egalitarian interpretation is in fact the one most consistent with biblical and orthodox theology; and 3.) that Grudem is grabbing at straws by looking for authoritative answers in pagan literature.

Where Are the Egalitarian Scholars?

My impression is that by-and-large, egalitarian scholars are choosing to ignore Grudem and Piper's book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW), or as I like to call it, complementarianism's grudemus maximus. Why are they ignoring it? There may be a number of reasons, but my general sense is that egalitarian scholars find Grudem annoyingly persistent in raising questions they have already answered. They may feel no need to belabor the matter with someone who just doesn't seem to get it. In addition, they may find many of his arguments petty and repetitious. In my opinion Grudem seems to think that if he can overwhelm his opponents with minutia and wear them out with volume (via minutia and repetition) that he will eventually end up getting in the last word. None of this makes him right but he ends up looking like the winner. Since no one is willing to keep playing his game, they appear to forfeit.

I visualize a kind of Asteroids game going on. Egalitarians hurl out an asteroid and Grudem breaks it into tiny pieces and hurls them back. Now, to respond, the egalitarians have to neutralize hundreds of tiny projectiles. If they do this, each projectile will be returned again, itself broken into hundreds of pieces of more of the same. Nothing new is added and he never really introduces anything that raises the discussion to a new level of issues or answers. It's the same garbage and debris as before, only ad nauseam. Eventually the egalitarian scholar says, "The heck with this; this is getting us nowhere!" The dialog hasn't moved to any deeper level and so the busy scholars decide to move on to more productive ventures, leaving their earlier research and statements to speak for themselves.

However, the March 1997 JETS Bilezikian article is one place where I think an egalitarian scholar has given a formidable answer regarding CBMW/RBMW's view of headship as it relates to the Trinity. Catherine Kroeger and other egalitarians have also presented similar papers at the ETS since RBMW came out. Yet Grudem continues to challenge them with the familiar Asteroids approach I've described.

An Example

As I look at Grudem's Appendix 1 in RBMW, it does not appear to me to be as much a response as a repetition of his original claims and arguments. There isn't much new here, just an amassing of data coupled with the same type of (mis)interpretation ad nauseum. If he feels he's not received a response, perhaps it's because he hasn't really said anything new. Having the last word does not necessarily make one right and often authors do not reply when they feel their original comments stand.

In pointing readers back to Bilezekian and Kroeger's original papers, my purpose is to suggest that those concerned read for themselves what they said, and not be content with Grudem's rendition of their views. While their evidence and arguments may not satisfy or persuade Grudem and Co., the same may not be the case for others who may have less at stake than Dr. Grudem and his colleagues by admitting Bilezikian and Kroeger are right.

For example: On page 426 Grudem says, "A new search of 2,336 examples of kephale from a wide range of ancient Greek literature produced no convincing examples where kephale meant 'source'."

Well, convincing to whom? Many of us would say the 49 texts Bilezikian reviewed in 1986 are convincing, and these included 30 biblical examples. Then there are the many classical cases provided by Kroeger in her numerous works, including her Patristic studies.

In other words, the problem may not be with Bilezekian and Kroeger's case, but with Grudem's inability to accept what they and other scholars have said. Only by going back to the research of these scholars can an objective reader determine this. It would be profitable, then, for readers not only to revisit Bilezekian and Kroeger's original papers, but the works of other writers that Grudem critiques, including Cervin, the Mickelsens, Tucker, Liefeld, Payne, Fee, etc. These are highly respectable scholars who deserve to be studied directly, without the mediation of those whose bias is obviously slanted against them. The widespread agreement among these scholars in matters objected to by Dr. Grudem is also an argument in itself against him.

The RBMW appendix on kephale is, to my thinking, a perfect example of Grudem's misguided Asteroids strategy of overwhelming minutia and his penchant for getting in the last word. If repetition is persuasive, then this appendix is an apologetic masterpiece. But errors are not proven by redundancy. So I find little for Bilezikian or Kroeger (et al.) to be concerned about here.

The Big Theological Problem With CBMW's Views

From a theological point of view, none of RBMW's views are more troubling than its espousal of subordinationism within the Trinity, a heresy repeatedly denounced by the church. The subordination RBMW alleges is said to be an eternal aspect of the economic Trinity, though the authors admit it does not pertain to the essence of the Trinity. The question Bilezikian raises is, how can it be eternal and not essential?

Complementarians go beyond seeing Jesus as submitting to the Father in the incarnation or when Jesus was on earth. They argue for a unilateral submission that is eternal, as opposed to a mutual submission that resulted in Christ's temporal obedience to the Father. The underlying presumption is that there is a hierarchy of authority within the eternal Trinity. They do this based on their (mis)understanding of head (kephale).

From the perspective of historic and biblical orthodoxy, however, Jesus submitted not because being the second Person of the Trinity made him subordinate. He is not; he is equal to the Father. Jesus submitted first because he chose to voluntarily by becoming human, and second because it is humanity that is subordinate to God. Jesus, though God, became human and therefore had to learn obedience (Heb 5:8). Had he been accustomed to obedience before his incarnation, surely there would have been nothing to learn.

There was a mutual-decision aspect of Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection, in that it is clear that the Scriptures teach this was something God purposed in himself from eternity. This means Jesus, being fully God, had from eternity purposed within himself and with the Father to carry out the plan of salvation. It was not that Jesus needed to be persuaded or pressured into carrying out the plan. Rather, it was his condescension to humanity and to the form of a servant that placed him in the position of a human submitting to God.

So the Son exalts the Father for submitting all things to the Son (Jn 16:14-15; 17:1-10, see also Mt 11:27; Jn 13:3: 16:30). The Father exalts the Son for submitting completely to the Father (Jn 17:1,5; Phil 2:5-11). And the Spirit takes what is the Father's and the Son's and uses them to bring them glory (Jn 16:13-15).

One wonderful thing illustrated by the Trinity is that differences need not imply inequality. Each Person of the Trinity is fully and equally God and therefore is equal in every divine perfection, including authority and power. The differences within the Godhead did not require one member to be subordinate to another (there is no subordination). But submission between the equal persons of the Trinity is voluntary (i.e. willful) even when it is most severe. And the response to submission from each person within the Trinity is not to exploit it or embrace it as being final, but to exalt the one who submitted.

So when Grudem asks for an example in ancient literature of someone called a "head" who was not also that person's authority, he overlooks the very texts in question that speak of the equal Persons of the Trinity.

Understanding Requires More Than Word Definitions

Here are some quick definitions:

Strong's Concordance:

Submit/Submission: 5293. hupotasso, hoop-ot-as'-so; from G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflex. to obey:--be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

Obey: 5219. hupakouo, hoop-ak-oo'-o; from G5259 and G191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority:--hearken, be obedient to, obey.

Head: 2776. kephale, kef-al-ay'; prob. from the prim. kapto (in the sense of seizing); the head (as the part most readily taken hold of), lit. or fig.:--head.

New American Standard Concordance:

Submit/Submission: G5293. hupotassw, from G5259 and G5021; to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey:-- put in subjection(5), subject(16), subjected(7), subjecting(1), subjection(4), submissive(3), submit(2).

Obey: G5219. hupakouw, from G5259 and G191; to listen, attend to:-- answer(1), became obedient(1), becoming obedient(1), heed(1), obedient(2), obey(12), obeyed(3).

Head: G2776. kephalay, a prim. word; the head:-- chief(3), hair(1), head(50), heads(19), very(2).

Of course these are not the kind of in-depth entries one might find in a better lexicon or Bible dictionary. And the problem with these and other definitions is that they are written by the same kinds of people, if not the same people, who are engaged in this very debate. Thus even the "experts" vary in their understandings and definitions. Someone writes a dictionary or lexicon entry and someone else, equally scholarly, writes a scathing critique of it elsewhere.

What's more, a word may mean different things in different contexts. Consider for example how Paul and James each use the term "works." Paul says we are not justified by works (Romans 4-5) while James says our works are needed to justify us (James 2:14-26). How can this be? They both use the same Greek word! One key to understanding them lies in the different ways they use the word, as well as the different Old Testament contexts they draw from to make their cases. Similarly in English, coming in contact with a "ball" might have one meaning and significance if the context is baseball, another if it's soccer, football, basketball, etc. Still another if one is Cinderella. Biblical words (like modern English words) have differing nuances depending on their contexts. How should we understand the Bible's use of words like submission and authority?

As I read the NT, I get the sense that the term submit usually means to yield to, cooperate with, or place oneself under the direction of another. But as applied to Christians, it involves placing oneself under another for the purpose of serving their best interest. Under this definition, one may refuse to do another's will and yet be submitting, as when Paul tells us to submit to governing authorities (Ro 13) and yet ends up executed by Rome.

When the NT speaks of authority it usually means to have the right to speak or act, or the right to influence others, or to be believed, trusted, and respected when speaking or acting. Rightly understood, then, submission usually carries the sense of deferring to others or serving their needs; authority carries the sense of asserting one's will or judgment rightfully on others.

Now, does telling someone to submit to someone else necessarily mean that the someone-else has authority over the submitter? After all, we are told to submit to one another. If we all do this, who's in charge? And we are told to regard one another as more important than ourselves (Phil 2:3-4). If we all do this, who's on top? Jesus told the apostles they were to serve one another and not to exercise authority over one another (Mt 20:25-28). If no one had authority, did that mean they never submitted to one another? Rather, all are to submit.

As for the NT's application of mutual submission/authority to marriage, see 1 Corinthians 7:4-5. I know of no clearer statement in Scripture to demonstrate that God wants men and women to exercise authority and submission with mutuality and equality.

For an example of Jesus submitting to the church, see first his washing of the disciples' feet in John 13, where he offered himself as an example of a servant. He also said he came not to be served but to serve. This, he said, is how we were to treat each other. Notably, Jesus did refuse to "submit" when Peter tried to refuse the foot washing. This goes to my point that placing oneself under another for service does not necessarily mean you must comply with their every wish.

Second, Jesus makes numerous promises about granting what we ask in prayer, provided we meet appropriate conditions. This promise to comply with our requests when we comply with his is nothing less than mutual submission. His promise to give whatever we ask in his name, or when two or more agree, etc., seems to me to fit the idea of his submitting to believers if you take submit to mean "yield or defer to another's will." That he took the form of a servant and serves others fits the idea of "placing oneself under another for the purpose of serving their best interest."

Must "Head" Mean "Authority"?

Arguments over whether or not "head" means authority seem to me to be mute when we consider that the authority we are to imitate is Jesus. Certainly he is our head and our authority. But he redefines how a person with authority is to act.

Certainly first-century husbands were people with authority. For Paul to acknowledge this by calling them "husbands" or even "heads" does not necessarily mean he endorses subordination as God's design. After all, acknowledging a master's rights over a slave in that culture did not mean Paul (or God) approved of slavery as a pattern of relationships that Christians ought to embrace for all time. Paul's point in calling husbands "heads" seems to me to be that he wants them to look to Jesus as the paradigm for what a "head" should be like. In doing so, headship becomes redefined by what Jesus is. Jesus had and has supreme authority, but what makes him a preeminent example for husbands, masters, and leaders is his remarkable humility, servanthood, compassion, selflessness and the like. Jesus' very victory derives from how he surrendered himself. Further more, he grants his followers authority to ask things of him and to expect to get them. So even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that kephale means authority, it misses the point to focus on that word, given that the point of each passage in which it appears is for those in similar positions to imitate Jesus' meek character and subservient behavior. The real point is that if even Jesus lowers himself to serve the best interests of others, so ought we all. Being an authority or head does not excuse us from doing this; it may actually obligate us all the more.

In the marriage arrangement, imitating Christ as head means doing what he's described as doing not only in Ephesians 5 but in Ephesians 1 and 2. There he is said to have elevated his bride to sit at his side in the heavens. In Romans and elsewhere we are called his co-heirs. True Christian headship, then, means elevating others to equal status with ourselves.

Context -- literal and cultural -- is so very important. Keep in mind that God was speaking through writers like Paul to a culture that still accepted slavery and patriarchy. Though Paul's instruction did not always directly challenge the existence of these institutions, it did have a way of equalizing those within the institutions. The instructions to both masters and slaves have the effect of saying, imitate Christ. The same with the instructions to both husbands and wives: imitate Christ. Meanwhile, the NT teachings planted seeds that would later result in Christians rejecting slavery as inconsistent with Christ's fundamental moral teachings (love your neighbor as yourself, and the golden rule, etc.). The same hermeneutic that ended slavery needs to be applied to the passages on family and marital relations, since organically and contextually these are the same texts.

What egalitarians claim is that textual context and biblical core teachings mitigate against hierarchic and authoritarian arrangements between the sexes, as between races and socio-economic classes (Gal 3:28). We do not deny that first-century families were arranged into hierarchies that included slaves or that Paul addressed those hierarchies in their cultural and fallen arrangements. Nor do we deny that Christians are to submit to and obey each other, or to respect existing cultural authorities.

But we do claim first, that Christians in positions of any kind of authority are to become Christlike, since Christ is the ultimate example of an authority. This means placing ourselves under others as he did even though he was rightfully called Master and Lord (Jn 13). It means not grasping at equality for ourselves, but regarding others as more important than ourselves (Phil 2). These are not directives given just to women and they are not given to men only in relation to other men. They are given to all of us without respect to gender in relating to all other believers without respect of their genders.

The resulting mutual submission is therefore not "no submission;" it is more submission. This, more than anything else, is probably what really scares complementarians the most. The men do not want to submit to their wives, who are their marriage partners, and the women fear the responsibility that comes with being an equal partner who is submitted to. They then prove their insubordinate and subversive spirit by wrangling over words and twisting Scripture, rather than submitting to it. In the end it turns out that it is the complementarian, rather than the egalitarian, who really has the problem with biblical submission.

We claim that though Paul and the New Testament writers worked with and addressed the cultural family structure of the day, not challenging cultural institutions but presenting how a Christian might function within those institutions, yet they planted the seeds for those institutions later to be challenged and overturned. Thus, though Paul tells slaves to submit, slavery as a part of society's structure was wrong and the NT's teachings laid the ground work for the proper abolition of slavery. Likewise, the NT tells women within the same structure to submit. The same teachings and hermeneutic principles call for an abolition of the hierarchic, patriarchic structure while retaining Christian marriage, family, and the principle that all Christians are to submit to one another (Eph 5:21).

If we focus on the structure of passages like Ephesians 5:21-6:9, we might conclude that patriarchy, hierarchy and slavery are God's design for the family structure. But if we look at what each category of person was to do within that fallen-order structure, we conclude that every Christian is to be like Christ in putting ourselves under others, subjecting and submitting ourselves to each other, and being servantlike. Even Masters are told to "do the same" (Eph 6:9). The result is that the least becomes as the greatest and the greatest as the least. What else can we call this but "egalitarianism"?

(rev 02/25/1999)