(Missed part 7? Read it here. Or start from the beginning.)
The Nature of Women and Men — No Nuance?
We now enter part 3 of Beyond Authority and Submission, where Rachel Green Miller discusses modern conservative Christian views of men and women — generally considered “complementarian.” And this is where it starts to get pretty ugly.
It’s Scripturally clear that there are some ideas which, in order to be understood properly, have to be held in tension. God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. The “already/not yet” nature of what Jesus accomplished. And so on. Among these we have the fact that “male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27, NKJV) and “there is neither male nor female.” (Gal. 3:28, NKJV) It is valid to discuss what this tension might properly look like, but Miller misrepresents numerous complementarians by removing or glossing over all nuance in their positions. Starting with the quote at the beginning of the chapter.
“So, was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and, unlike the animals, ‘suitable for him.’ But she was not his equal in that she was his ‘helper.’ God did not create men and women in an undifferentiated way…” (p. 105 This quote continues.) What is Miller’s takeaway from this? “She Was Not His Equal” — the title of the chapter. She’s chosen to completely overlook his “yes and,” and focus entirely on the “no,” which presents a warped version of his actual position. This same pattern continues throughout.
Unsubstantiated Claims
Early in the chapter, we read that “the popular complementarian definition of masculinity and the nature of men is that masculine men are strong, brave, courageous, and decisive. They are leaders, providers, and protectors. While most complementarians appeal to the Scriptures to defend this description of masculinity, we have seen that these definitions actually come from the Greeks, Romans, and Victorians.” (p. 109)
All of the primary issues with the argumentation of this book can be seen in this one quote. The aim should be to look at any of the particular definitions of masculinity or femininity, measure it against Scripture, and see if it agrees or disagrees. If the Bible is actually our standard, if we actually care about Sola Scriptura, as Miller purportedly does, then this should be enough. But the book doesn’t even attempt to center around examining beliefs about these things one by one in the light of Scripture.
It simply asserts that, while the complementarians say their ideas come from Scripture, they don’t really — without ever looking at the Scriptural arguments complementarians make — and that these ideas come from the Greeks, Romans, and Victorians — a claim she never actually proves. (She proves that the Greeks, Romans, and Victorians shared some ideas with modern complementarians, but not that they are the source for those ideas.)
Jumbled Concepts
Many of the representations of “complementarian” views are also quite jumbled. Consider this passage: “Many complementarians believe that God ordained men to be leaders because women, like Eve, are spiritually weaker than men are. Men are like an umbrella of protection for women. As fathers, husbands, and church leaders, men provide a spiritual covering for women. If a woman rejects God’s design for her protection, then she puts herself at risk like Dinah did.” (p. 111)
Theoretically, a given complementarian could believe any or all of these things, but this passage is not the presentation of a single idea. The citation given here is an excellent article by Douglas Wilson presenting what, in my opinion, is a very much not domineering perspective on the interaction of men and women with regard to protection. (It would, in fact, directly contradict many of the claims made in Miller’s book.)
It’s abundantly obvious that the protection under consideration in the article is physical in nature — something that one might note by the allusion by Miller to Dinah. (I don’t recall Wilson himself mentioning Dinah.) But the argument Miller is making is one about spiritual protection and weakness. This is sloppy, at best, dishonest at worst. And it isn’t the first or the last time that she melds and collapses ideas that are quite distinct but contain similar-sounding terms.
Authority & Submission — Universal?
There seems to be some real confusion — perhaps rooted in that elimination of nuance? — over the roles that authority and submission play in masculinity and femininity. It certainly is not a universal notion that women in general are to submit to men in general. In fact, I’ve seen Douglas Wilson (who Miller seems to have a particular beef with) explicitly state that this is not the case.
I believe a common view would be accurately described as the recognition that we are all created to fit into God’s normative design as members of households and, consequently, women are, by nature, wired to submit to a man (a man — as in, one, specific man) and men are, by nature, wired to lead a woman (a woman), children, and possibly/potentially a church. But this, as you can imagine, would get a little unwieldy to spell out every time, so it’s assumed that people will understand an author’s words in the context in which he gives them. If one cares to understand these writers’ actual positions, many overtly point out that women don’t submit to all men.
Eternal Subordination of the Son
Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) is a theological concept that some of my readers may not care to delve into. The general gist of the teaching is that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, in contrast to the more traditional, orthodox belief that He became subordinate to the Father in the incarnation only. (Ph’p 2:5-11) Miller raises the issue here because some complementarians teach this doctrine and closely correlate it to their views of men’s and women’s roles.
I side with Miller in opposing ESS, but I think her assessment of the overall situation presents a false dichotomy and a misunderstanding of hierarchy. “If a woman submits to male authority just because she is a woman, then she has no choice. She submits because she’s female. Contrary to this heirarchical view of women and men, submission in marriage and in the church is an example of equals agreeing to submit to the authority of leaders they have chosen for themselves. This is order, but not subordination.” (p. 117)
The common complementarian position, however, is not that “a woman submits to male authority just because she is a woman.” It is that “a wife submits to a husband just because she is his wife.” The biblical order is a hierarchy. (1 Cor. 11:3) This doesn’t negate the fact that all men and women are equal in value, etc. But all men and women are not equal in their functional positions.
On a Witch Hunt
Sometimes it seems that Miller is just looking for reasons to say, “see, complementarians are bad,” because the conclusions she draws don’t even make sense. On page 119 and flowing into 120, she talks about complementarian views about applying the principles of authority and submission to our lives, particularly in marriage. She says, “according to many complementarians, men demonstrate authority by leading their wives and families in everything. They should discuss important decisions with their wives, but ultimately, the final decision is their responsibility. This is especially true if husbands and wives disagree. Men are the tiebreakers.” (p. 120) Most would, indeed, agree with this, and consider this a biblically-grounded position. But moving directly from this description of male authority in the home, she flows into this:
“Based on these complementarian definitions, is a man who works as a nurse or a teacher feminine? What about a man who loves art or fashion or shopping or baking–is he less masculine? Or is a woman who’s an engineer, a scientist, or a cop masculine? What if she loves sports or hunting or working on cars or is the CEO of a company–is she less feminine?” (p. 120)
Huh? What in the world does any of that have to do with a man taking responsibility for the decisions in his household? If we’re basing our ideas of masculine or feminine on things like whether someon’s a nurse or likes baking or working on cars, then we absolutely need to confront those ideas to see whether they’re biblical. (I certainly don’t think they are.) But this entire group of ideas is completely out of left field here.
Are We Opposites?
“It’s no secret that men and women are different. Even our mixed-up culture recognizes that we’re not exactly the same. But there’s no consensus on how we are different.” (p. 120) This is a valid point, and would form an excellent basis for an honest discussion. Unfortunately, it’s implied — both here and earlier in the book — that complementarians see men and women as basically opposites. This is typically not the case, as indicated by the quote that opened the chapter, where Ray Ortlund pointed out that Eve was “suitable for [Adam].”
In the next chapter, Miller will finally take a serious look at Scripture on the subject of women (and, in a coming chapter, men).
Leave a Reply