Responding to
feminism in the church
http://www.cbmw.org.uk/articles/respondingkephale.htm
The prior conviction that men and women must be 'equal' (with 'equality' defined
in the modern sense of fulfilling identical roles) has driven egalitarians to
several major 'reinterpretations' of Scripture. In 1998 Dr Wayne Grudem wrote an
open letter to egalitarians challenging them to answer six simple questions
(JBMW 3.1). The questions are still unanswered. Four of the six questions
appear below: full article on CBMW web-site.
An open letter to
egalitarians
Questions that have
never been satisfactorily answered
1. kephale:
Where the Bible says that the husband is the "head'' (kephale) of the
wife as Christ is the "head'' (kephale) of the church (Eph. 5:23), and
that the head of the woman is the man (1 Cor. 11:3), you tell us that "head''
here means "source'' and not "person in
authority over (someone).'' In fact, as far as we can tell, your
interpretation depends on the claim that kephale means "source without
the idea of authority.'' But we have never been able to find any text in ancient
Greek literature that gives support to your interpretation. Wherever one person
is said to be the "head'' of another person (or persons), the person who is
called the "head'' is always the
one in authority (such
as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the
tribes of Israel, David as head of the nations, etc.) Specifically,
we cannot find any text where person A
is called the "head'' of person or persons B, and is not in a position of
authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim
that "head'' can mean "source without authority.''
Does any such evidence exist? We would be happy to
look at any Greek text that you
could show us from the 8th century B.C. to the 4th century A.D. (a span of 12
centuries). In all of that literature, our question of fact is this: Will you
please show us one example in all of
ancient Greek where this word for "head'' (kephale) is used to say
that person A is the "head'' of person or persons B, and means what you claim,
namely, "non-authoritative source''? If
you can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your
interpretation further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no
factual basis for your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully
ask that you stop writing and speaking as if such factual basis existed. We
would also respectfully ask that you also reconsider your understanding of these
verses.
Kurtechism:
Male headship is not in question. The husband is head of the wife. However, the
nature of male headship is in
question. Pagan headship models definitely carry the
meaning of leader/superior. However,
Jesus repudiated the
lord over model used in all pagan cultures. Grudem’s appeal to cultural lord
over models violates the expressed teaching of Jesus. Jesus is the one and only
example required. Egalitarian scholars should
not try to find any alternative
interpretation of the Greek word for head in ancient usage. An alternative or
obscure meaning for headship buried in an ancient text is not necessary.
Authority and headship are not to be like the Gentile model. Jesus was repulsed
by the Roman and Greek headship/leadership/authority structures. Jesus was
crucified by the polytheistic cultures that Grudem uses as his examples of
headship. All the erudition in the world cannot overturn the words of Jesus. For
Grudem and pagan culture head means
position of authority over others. For Jesus
head does not mean a position of
authority over anyone. There is only one Lord of the Church.
Mark 10:41-45
41 And when the ten
heard it, they began to be greatly displeased with James and John. 42 But Jesus
called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered
rulers over the Gentiles lord it over
them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great
among you shall be your servant.
44 And whoever of you desires to be
first shall be slave of all.
45 For even the Son of Man
did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for
many." NKJV
Jesus alone is the
one we should use to define the Christian meaning of headship. Jesus is the
definition and final word on headship not a Gentile dictionary. The words
authority over and headship over—whatever they meant in Gentile and Greek
dictionaries—do not apply to the church, marriage, the family or the home. Why
does Grudem take such pleasure in wallowing in the murky non-Christian Gentile
model of lord over authority and headship? Why does Grudem ignore Jesus and his
teachings on servant-based leadership? According to Jesus there is no greatness
in the pagan lord over paradigm. Greek and Roman headship models have no place
in the Christian church. Shouldn’t Grudem work as hard to become last and
servant of all instead of lord over others? Shouldn’t Grudem work as hard to
become the servant of his wife, to give his life and to serve her as Christ
loves and serves the church? Grudem’s desire to be first and rule over and head
over is astounding for such a scholar. We really don’t care what the word
kaphale/head meant to pagans.
Polytheism is the wrong paradigm for interpreting the Bible. Let Jesus teach us
what headship means to him. Let Jesus be the beginning and end of our theology.
Headship is
servanthood not lord over. If we are appointed to a headship position we are
appointed to serve as a slave. If we are the head of our wives—we are the head
servants of our wives. The wife is master—we are slaves. A slave does not rule
over anyone. In Grudem’s mind marriage makes the wife our property and our
servant. A husband is not the lord over and master over his wife. She already
has a Lord and Master. A husband is the servant of his wife. Authority is
servanthood not lordship.
What is the job of a
servant? What power does a servant have? A servant is not free.
Eph 6:5-8
5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with
respect and fear, and with sincerity
of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their
favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ,
doing the will of God from your heart.
7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were
serving the Lord, not men, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward
everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. NIV
Col 3:22-25
22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in
everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their
favor, but with sincerity of heart and
reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do,
work at it with all your heart, as
working for the Lord, not for men, 24 since you know that you will receive an
inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
NIV
A servant does not
come home from a hard day in the fields to sit down in front to the TV with a
beer and order dinner to be served. A servant has no authority over or headship
over anyone even in pagan cultures.
Luke 17:7-9
7 "Suppose one of
you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the
servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? 8
Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me
while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? 9 Would he thank the
servant because he did what he was told to do? NIV
Grudem Continues:
2. hypotasso:
Where the Bible says that wives are to "be subject to'' to their husbands (Col.
3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1,5; and implied in Eph. 5:22,24),
you tell us that the verb "be
subject to'' (hypotasso, passive) is a requirement for both husbands
and wives--that just as wives are to be subject to their husbands, so husbands
are to be subject to their wives, and
that there is no unique authority
that belongs to the husband. Rather, the biblical ideal is "mutual
submission'' according to Ephesians 5:21, "be subject to one another,'' and
therefore there is no idea of one-directional submission to the husband's
authority in these other verses (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1,5; and Eph.
5:22, 24). But we have never been able
to find any text in ancient Greek literature where hypotasso
(passive) refers to a person or persons being "subject to'' another person, and
where the idea of submission to that
person's authority is absent. In
every example we can find, when person A is said to "be subject to'' person B,
person B has a unique authority which person A does not have.
In other words, hypotasso
always implies a one-directional submission to someone in authority.
Kurtechism: Again why is Grudem so
fixated on securing one directional authority and submission? It is important to
Grudem that the unique authority belongs
to a husband. Hupotasso is not an
inherent male property but according to Grudem only a husband’s property. Men in
general do not have authority over women in general. In other words a man must
be married in order to enjoy his rulership over his woman. However, what is the
nature of the husband and wife relationship in the Christian church? Shouldn’t
it be vastly different than in pagan polytheistic culture?
Should the husband
exercise his authority like a
dictator or an all benevolent source of life and blessing? Our submission to
Jesus is not one directional or based on authority but based on love and
friendship. Grudem is a fascist. He wants centralized control over his territory
and wifely belonging. Yet, a wife doesn’t submit to her husband’s position of
authority but to her loving husband in Christ as a shepherd.
1 Peter 5:2-3
2
Shepherd the flock of God which is
among you, serving as overseers, not
by compulsion but willingly, not for
dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as
being lords over those entrusted to you,
but being examples to the flock;
NKJV
Jesus said, “Feed my
sheep.” He didn’t say rule like a Roman emperor over my sheep. The authority of
the shepherd is to protect the sheep from wolves, lions, and bears. Authority is
over Satan and for the benefit of the sheep. The shepherd cares for the sheep he
doesn’t set up dominion over them like a military general. Husbands are the
shepherd of not
lord over.
Grudem Continues:
So our question is this: Will you please show us
one example in all of ancient Greek
where this word for "be subject to'' (hypotasso, passive) is used
to refer to one person in relation to
another and does not include the
idea of one-directional submission to the other person's authority? If you
can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation
further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for
your interpretation of these key verses, and we respectfully ask that you stop
writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your
understanding of these verses.
Kurtechism: Our model for headship
and submission is God the Father and God the Son. The headship relationship
between the two members of the Trinity is not one directional. The headship
relationship is not based on naked authority but on equal respect and unity. Why
is Grudem so obsessed with authority over? Why does he love authority so much
and desire authority so much. Grudem is like a pyromaniac with matches. We don’t
really care what the Greeks, Egyptians or the Romans or other pagans think about
submission and subjection. This is where the TLG won’t help us. Who cares what
all of ancient Greek literature shows us about anything. We care or should care
about the Jesus model and Christian definition of those words. Jesus rejected
the authority over definition of the Gentile model that Grudem appeals to for
canon.
Grudem Continues:
3.
authenteo: In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul writes, "I permit no woman to teach
or to have authority over men.'' Many of you claim that the word translated
"have authority'' (authenteo) means "misuse authority'' or "domineer''
(or even "instigate violence'') in this sentence, so that Paul is not
prohibiting women from having authority over men, but he is prohibiting women
from misusing authority or domineering over men.
Our problem is this: we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek
literature where authenteo must mean "domineer'' or "misuse
authority.'' Whenever we have seen
this verb occur, it takes a neutral sense, "have authority'' or "exercise
authority,'' with no negative connotation attaching to the word itself. We are
aware that a related noun, authentes, has several different meanings,
but that is not the word Paul used, and we are interested in the word that Paul
actually used. So our question is this: Will you please show us one example in
all of ancient Greek where the verb authenteo means what you claim,
namely, "misuse authority or domineer'' (or even "instigate violence'')?
If you can show us one example,
we would be happy to consider your interpretation further. But if you cannot,
then we suggest that you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this
key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you
did, and that you also reconsider your understanding of these verses.
Kurtechism:
Why does Grudem believe that authenteo
is synonymous with exousia? Whatever
is left of authenteo after scholars
are done shredding it—authenteo is
not synonymous with exousia. Show the
world one example in scripture where
exousia is forbidden to women? If
exousia is not forbidden to women or restricted why do you write as if it
is? Would you please stop writing as if it is a fact that
exousia is not the divine property of
godly women. Nowhere is exousia
prohibited from women in scripture.
Exousia is only limited and restricted to women by male culture and
culturally driven theologians.
Grudem Continues:
4.
Women teaching false doctrine at Ephesus: In 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul
says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man,'' many
of you say the reason for Paul's prohibition is that women were teaching false
doctrine in the church at Ephesus (the church to which 1 Timothy was written).
Our problem in understanding the basis for your claim is that we see no evidence
inside or outside the Bible that tells us that any women were teaching false
doctrine in the church at Ephesus. More than that, since
Paul's prohibition applies to all women,
it seems to us that your position really needs to show that all the women at
Ephesus were teaching false doctrine. So we are wondering if there is any text
that tells us that all (or any) Christian women were teaching false doctrine in
the church at Ephesus.
We recognize that some women were gossiping at Ephesus (1 Tim. 5:13), but that
is not the same as teaching false doctrine--we all know people who gossip but
who don't teach false doctrine! And we know that there were pagan religions in
Ephesus where non-Christian men and women did a number of things that were not
done by Christians--but to say that they did such things after becoming
Christians just strikes us a speculation, not evidence. In fact, we have read
evidence in the Bible about people teaching false doctrine at Ephesus, but they
are not women, they are men. So, for example, Paul talks about "Hymenaeus and
Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is
past already. They are upsetting the faith of some'' (2 Tim. 2:17-18). He also
speaks of "Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may
learn not to blaspheme'' (1 Tim. 1:20), but these are men, not women. Similarly,
Paul warns the Ephesian elders, "from among your own selves will arise men
speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them'' (Acts 20:30),
but here he says these false teachers will be men (Greek andres), not
that they will be women.
Kurtechism:
No one should be allowed to teach false doctrine: male or female. However, we
know for certain that Priscilla taught Apollos advanced biblical doctrine at her
church in Ephesus. She is commended for many things in scripture and considered
a fellow worker by Paul. Even if Priscilla were the only example of a godly
female authoritatively teaching men within the church—she would be enough to
show the future for other godly women. Not all women at Ephesus were prohibited
from teaching nor restricted to teaching women. Priscilla was not silent in the
churches. She was a church planter with a home church in Ephesus. Priscilla
benefited from her relationship with Paul. She taught others, including men,
what she learned from apostles. Priscilla didn’t need instruction from her
husband at home. Instead, she instructed others from the church in her home.
Priscilla is a pioneer not a problem. Let there be thousands of Priscillas. Why
not? What did Priscilla do that was wrong, bad or intrinsically evil? There is
no innate female gender role that prohibited or restricted her from full
participation in growing the body of Christ. Grudem’s interpretation of
scripture would not allow Priscilla to speak or teach Apollos or any other male.
Why does Grudem work so hard to stop Priscilla? Why does Grudem seek to forbid
what scripture affirms, approves and commends?
Grudem Continues:
So our question is this: Will you please show us one reference in all of ancient
literature, whether inside or outside the Bible, that states that
all the Christian women at Ephesus (or
even that any Christian women at Ephesus) were teaching false doctrine? If you
can show us one example, we would be happy to consider your interpretation
further. But if you cannot, then we suggest that you have no factual basis for
your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop
writing and speaking as if you did, and that you also reconsider your
understanding of these verses. We know that there are many other questions of
interpretation on which we may differ, and we realize that these matters do not
solve all of those questions. But we thought that these matters might be the
simplest to resolve, since they just involve questions of factual evidence. Are
there any real facts to support your claims?
Kurtechism:
The advice given by Paul in 1 Timothy is typical marriage counsel given in every
other place in scripture. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not dealing with all women
everywhere but wives married to weak husbands; the kind we read about in 1 Peter
3. No matter what legalistic pharisaic position Grudem takes—it can’t mean that
good Christian women should not lead a man to Christ and if necessary disciple
him into the kingdom of God. There are too many examples of godly women fully
involved in gospel ministry for General Grudem’s interpretation of this passage
to be the only canon. Grudem is so smart he talked himself right out of obeying
Jesus. Jesus told the women to go and speak to men. Grudem subjects them,
silences them, subordinates them and lords it over them, with authority and
headship over women into repression and fear. His pagan model for headship is a
brilliant and erudite reflection of everything that contradicts Jesus.
Egalitarian: believing in equality:
maintaining, relating to, or based on a
belief that all people are, in principle, equal and should enjoy equal social,
political, and economic rights and opportunities (Encarta Reference Library
2003). Egalitarianism is contrary to the satanic hostility projected against
women in Genesis 3:15.
In Genesis 3:15
there is hostility between the serpent and the woman. Notice the hostility,
enmity or war is aimed at the woman not the serpent toward men. The Bible
clearly shows that the pogrom in opposition to women was embedded in history at
the beginning of civilization. How would this demonic agenda against women be
worked out in world culture?
Will women be:
Honored or
dishonored
Exalted or despised
Protected or
rejected
Included or excluded
Free or restricted,
limited, bought and sold
Leaders or
subordinated
Equal or inferior
Respected or abused
Life or death
Valued or devalued
First or last
Positive or negative
For or against
Rulers or subjected
Individuals or
objects
Permitted or
prohibited
Allowed or
disallowed
Authorized or
forbidden
Public or private
Selected or silenced
Jesus came to
destroy the works of the devil including the satanic hostility against women.
1 John 3:8
The reason the Son
of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. NIV
Grudem speaks from
the point of view of the Greek and Roman world.
1 John 4:5
5 They are from the world and therefore
speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. NIV
Grudem’s foundation
is pagan culture. Our foundation should be Jesus.
There is no other
foundation except Christ. Be careful how you build (1 Cor 3:10).
Where in the entire
OT are women expressly prohibited by God from speaking the word of God to men?
No one benefits from the silencing of godly women…except the devil.
Thank you for considering our questions. We look forward to hearing a response
from you.
Sincerely yours,
Wayne Grudem, Ph.D. Please send your responses to me via e-mail at:
office@cbmw.org
Recommended
Resources:
Men, Women and Authority,
ed. Brian Edwards, Day One, 1996.
Equality in Christ: Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute,
Richard Hove, Crossway Books, 1999.
Women and the Church: A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2,
eds. Schreiner, Baldwin and Kostenberger. Baker, 1995.
Kurtechism:
There is only one headship model for Christians and that is Jesus Christ. Jesus
is the one and only head of the entire body. Men are not the head of the church.
Why does Grudem write that men are the head of the church? There is no male
hierarchy in the body of Christ. There is no all male chain of command in the
church modeled after the Roman military. A husband is not head of his wife as
Emperor Grudem states like
“the general of an army, the Roman emperor.”
In the body of Christ there is hierarchy of one. In the kingdom of God roles and
positions are stripped of the pagan concept of power over, lord over and
authority over. In the kingdom of God roles and positions are reversed; leaders
are servants and slaves of others not heads and mini-lords. Male headship should
reflect Jesus not usurp Jesus. I can just imagine General Grudem at home with
his wife and kids. I can’t imagine what the church structure would look like
modeled after Imperial Rome. Oh yeah, the Roman Catholic Church with its all
male regime. Emperor Grudem could rule over and exercise authority over and be
head over all those subordinates subjected to his lordship.
1 Cor 15:28
28 Now when all
things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him
who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. NKJV
Rom 13:1
Let every soul be
subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God,
and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. NKJV
1 Cor 16:16
16 that you also
submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.
NKJV
Eph 1:22-23
22 And He put all
things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23
which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. NKJV
Eph 5:21
21 submitting to one
another in the fear of God. NKJV
Eph 5:24
24 Therefore, just
as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
everything. NKJV
Col 3:18
Wives, submit to
your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. NKJV
Titus 3:1-3
Remind them to be
subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, 2
to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all
men. NKJV
Heb 2:8
For in that He put
all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now
we do not yet see all things put under him. NKJV
James 4:7
Therefore submit to
God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. NKJV
1 Peter 2:13
Therefore submit
yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as
supreme, NKJV
1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be
submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but
also to the harsh. NKJV
1 Peter 3:1
Wives, likewise, be
submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they,
without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, NKJV
1 Peter 3:22
22 who has gone into
heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having
been made subject to Him. NKJV
1 Peter 5:5
Likewise you younger
people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one
another, and be clothed with humility, NKJV
ALONE
Gen 2:18
18 And the LORD God
said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper
comparable to him." NKJV
The LORD God said,
"It is not good that man should be alone.” It is not good for 10 men to be
alone. It is not good for 7 men on a church council to be alone. If woman is
complimentary to man—an all male church board is incomplete, unbalanced and “not
good.”
God’s final word
about male headship, male primacy and the “Me first” order of creation is “it is
not good.” There was nothing uniquely special or incredibly extraordinary about
the creation of men. It is not good for a man to be by himself. What would the
omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God make to help Adam out of this condition?
Would the Creator make an inferior subordinate incapable of any real help?
Alone
(OT:905 bad bad) means
separation, alone, being alone, only, by itself, apart from, besides; a part of
the body, branch of a tree, bar for carrying; figuratively, chief of a city;
especially (with prepositional prefix) as an adverb (Strong's Concordance; Brown
Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon; Vine's Expository Dictionary).
My wife in on the
board of our family. I don’t make decisions for my family based on decisions
made in the man house.