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 free articles are available on similar subjects.

A Response to David Bayly's Update on CBMW's Six Questions

by Dave Leigh

I would like to thank Mr. Bayly for posting a statement on the website of Christians for Biblical Equality, in which he clarified the nature of recent complementarian posts on that site. I also found it of interest that the complementarian Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) is redrafting its "Six Questions Egalitarians Have Never Answered." Perhaps the new title can be "Six Questions Egalitarians Have Never Answered to Our Liking."

In giving us a little glimpse of what to expect of this revision, Mr. Bayly graciously gave us the following perspective:

1. "Only one response even approaches scholarly standards, and that on a rather esoteric principle tied to just one of the questions."

2. "The rest of the responses are either attempts to prove points from secondary material, or a rehashing of the basic arguments," which Dr. Grudem's works initially responded to.

He then offers: "I can't help but wonder if those who have written these are aware that Wayne's articles are more recent than most of the egalitarian sources these responses cite. I'm sure most of us would agree that simply reasserting former arguments is not a valid response to their rebuttal."

Mr. Bayly, this is precisely our point! What makes the six questions so remarkable and even offensive is precisely this, that older egalitarian sources can be referenced to show that answers have been given. That Dr. Grudem's questions or RBMW were ever written is anachronistic indeed. Dr. Grudem not only ignores the existence of such works in his questions, he fails to do them justice in his research. And it is precisely because "reasserting former arguments" is not worthwhile that egalitarians are so reluctant to continue this discussion with CBMW. In order for egalitarians to abandon those original arguments, a credible reply to them and to the original research would have to be made. With all due respect, egalitarians do not find Grudem's Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW) to be that credible reply.

Imagine being asked, "What is 2 + 2?" You answer, "4." Then you're told, "That's not good enough, give me a real answer!" What is there left to do? Do you spend a lot of time arguing with such a person until you're worn out? When you finally realize it's a waste of your time, you walk away. Meanwhile your questioner declares, "Look everyone, this person can't answer the question!" In my "non-scholarly" opinion as a former "complementarian," this is what has happened ever since 1986.

Since you complain of secondary sources, may I remind you that Dr. Grudem and RBMW are also secondary sources? And they are secondary sources at odds with a vast array of far more credible scholars. Should we deal in primary sources, as Drs. Bilezikian and Kroeger did in 1986 when replying to Dr. Grudem's original claims, you will only reinterpret those primary sources through your own grid of yet more secondary sources. It is an exercise doomed to end in futility.