The Logical Fallacy of “Equal But Subordinate”
(Suzanne has started blogging here on the Council For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s position on gender roles and eternal subordination. This post, cross-posted from Wordgazer’s Words, is a contribution to that conversation.)
Julie Anne over at Spiritual Sounding Board has drawn the blogosphere’s attention this week to an article that the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (“CBMW”) posted in its Spring 2006 Journal entitled “Relationships and Roles in the New Creation,” written by Mark David Walton. Spiritual Sounding Board put up its first post on this dated March 12, 2014, and the CBMW has since removed this article from its website. However, this screen shot captures the withdrawn article.
The gist of the article is that male headship and female subordination are part of the very nature of manhood and womanhood, and thus will continue in the next life: that the full arrival of the New Creation in Christ will simply be a more complete and joyful enacting of our gender roles.
In referring to “gender roles,” CMBW does not mean only that women take care of the house while men provide for the house; indeed, if that were the extent of it, it would be annoying but not nearly so dangerous. No, what CBMW means by “gender roles” is that men were designed by God for “headship” over women, while women were designed by God for “joyful submission” to male headship (i.e., willing subordination). Since according to CBMW, headship and subordination are part and parcel of what it means, respectively, to be a man or a woman, the logical conclusion would in fact be that these would continue into the next life. As the article puts it:
Complementarity [by which is meant male headship/female subordination] is not just an accommodation to the less-than-perfect conditions that prevailed during the first century. Rather, it is a divine principle weaved into the fabric of God’s order for the universe. . . . To deny the very concept of male headship on the false assumption that it is incompatible with creation ideals is, at best, reckless theology.
The Strange Figures blog has written a very humorous parody of the article– here’s a sample:
To our dear sisters in Christ,
Greetings to you in the name of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who has bought us with His blood, purchasing for Himself a people reflecting the richness of biblical manhood and womanhood. . .
For we have taught you always that your rank as women is part of the divine order, God’s prelapsarian will for the “better half” of his highest creation (if you will permit us a tiny and theologically unsound joke). If submission is God’s will for you in this mortal life, would it not also be His will for you in heaven? Heaven will be a return to the lost edenic dream in which you were created to be helpmeets to the “adams” God has appointed over you, and we look forward with anticipation to the blessings that will come to you when that perfect vision is restored.
Besides the fact that the idea of a new heavens and new earth in which I as a woman will be eternally subordinate– perhaps to all males, but at least to my husband, my father, my father-in-law, my grandfather, my grandfather-in-law (and so on down to the roots of the family tree) smells a bit more of fire and brimstone than any self-respecting concept of eternal bliss really has any business smelling of– there are some serious logical flaws in this whole line of thought.
I want to particularly address this line of reasoning from the article:
At the very heart of the feminist movement is the conviction that there can be no true equality as long as gender-based differentiation of roles and responsibility remain. . . Only where there is functional equivalence between the sexes does equality exist. . . [But this] premise is false because functional equivalence cannot be genuinely necessary to genuine equality. A biblical worldview understands that the locus of worth of a human life does not reside in any physical, emotional or intellectual attribute or possession. Neither is it to be found in the individual’s functionality or potential for productivity. The worth of each person is based upon the truth that he or she bears the imago dei, the image of God. . . . Feminists, both secular and evangelical, define equality in terms of functionality rather than ontologically– on the basis of being. They err by effectively reducing equality to “sameness”. . . We can be certain, however, that the new creation will be characterized not by sameness but by incredible diversity- diversity of abilities, diversity of gifts, and diversity of rewards. [Emphases in original.]
CBMW is here saying that all individuals have differing gifts and abilities and thus are not functionally equal, but are still ontologically equal: equal in their essential being or nature. Male and female gender roles are like this, the article implies. Just because women have differing gifts and abilities (and thus differing roles and responsibilities) than men does not make them essentially non-equal. If one person is gifted to be an entrepreneur and another to be a car mechanic, this functional difference does not equal an ontological difference. Both are made in the image of God and are thus equal in their very being, even though not equal in their gifts and abilities.
The difficulty here, of course, is that no “feminists” have actually denied this. As a Christian egalitarian and a Jesus feminist, I do not in fact believe what he says I believe: that functional equivalence is necessary for true equality– nor is this conclusion implied by my position. The idea is not that a particular man and a particular woman cannot be equal if he is leadership-oriented and she really prefers a supportive role. No– the egalitarian/feminist objection to male headship is not based on a requirement for functional equivalence. The objection is actually based on a false equation: that male headship/female subordination IS actually a functional difference. It is in reality an ontological one.
In order to see where I’m going with this, it’s important to understand the distinction between necessary (or essential) and accidental properties, as these terms are used in philosophy. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains:
[A]n essential property of an object is a property that it must have while an accidental property of an object is one that it happens to have but that it could lack. . . In the characterization just given of the distinction between essential and accidental properties, the use of the word “must” reflects the fact that necessity is invoked, while the use of the word “could” reflects that possibility is invoked. . . [T]o say that an object must have a certain property is to say that it could not lack it; and to say that an object could have a certain property is to say that it is not the case that it must lack it.
Many would say that each individual human could not fail to be human; if so, . . . the property of being human [is] an essential property of each human. And, too, many would say that although someone, say X, is in fact fond of dogs, X could have lacked that property; if that is right, then. . . the property of being fond of dogs [is] an accidental property of X.
Keeping those definitions in mind, it is clear that maleness or femaleness is an accidental property of being human. A human could be male and still be human; she could be female and still be human; a human could in fact be intersex and still be human. There is, then, a subset of humanity which is male and a subset which is female, and both subsets are human. Let’s look, then at what the CBMW article does with the concepts of headship and subordination as they relate to male and female humanity.
In the ordering of his creation. . . God formed the man first and gave him responsibility and authority as the head of the human race. This headship, far from being a result of the fall – feminist and egalitarian claims notwithstanding – is a central feature of the divine created order. Because the new creation is, fundamentally, a return to the divine order that prevailed before the fall, it follows that male headship will remain in the new creation. . . . The principle of headship and submission in male-female relations is clearly affirmed in the New Testament. Furthermore, nowhere in Scripture is this principle replaced or rescinded. . . There is every reason to believe, then, that male headship will continue as the divine order for male-female relationships. [Emphasis added.]
Notice what is happening here. God built male headship into humanity at creation and ordained that it would continue always. In other words, CMBW has assigned this quality – headship – as an essential attribute of those possessing one particular accidental trait: that of maleness. And they have assigned another quality – subordination/submission – as an essential attribute of those possessing another accidental trait: that of femaleness. Remember that it is the essential traits that make a thing ontologically itself. A human cannot be genetically non-human, because the human genome is essential to the being (the ontology) of humanness. CBMW is saying that headship is part of what makes male humans ontologically male, while subordination is part of what makes female humans ontologically female.
Now, we might say that possession of the XX chromosome is essential to being a female human, and that possession of the XY chromosome is essential to being a male human. We might also say that the potential ability to bear children is essential to being female, though a particular female human can have the accidental quality of being actually unable to bear children. Equivalently, the potential ability to engender children is essential to being a male human, while an actual inability to engender children would be an accidental quality of a particular male human. But notice how the essential qualities are equivalent. There is no essential ability in the one that does not correspond to an equal and corresponding essential ability in the other. One does not have an essential ability (potential procreation) which the other lacks, but both male and female are essential to human procreation. In other words, these essential properties are equal and result in ontological equality in male and female human beings.
The same is true of the imago dei which the CBMW article quite rightly identifies as the essential spiritual quality of humanness. Both male and female humans are equally made in the image of God. The image of God is not lesser or diminished in one human sex. To be made in the image of God is what it means to be human: this is a necessary/essential property of humanness.
But what does it mean to say that the subset of humans with the trait of maleness essentially possess headship, while the subset with the trait of femaleness essentially are subordinate to that headship? Submission and subordination are not positive ontological qualities in and of themselves; they are, rather, responses to the ontological quality of headship in the other. The human with headship is the agent, the mover, the one who acts. The subordinate human follows and responds to the agent and mover. Subordination is not an essential ability which is equal and corresponding to headship. It is in every way a lesser and dependent quality to the quality of headship.
If headship is essential to male humanity and subordination/submission is essential to female humanity, and since the essential attributes are what make a thing ontologically itself, then male humanity in its very essence possesses a quality which female humanity in its very essence lacks and is dependent upon. The result is that given these definitions of the nature of male and female humans, female humanity then logically and necessarily becomes ontologically lesser to male humanity.
We simply are not talking about functional differences here! If the nature of human maleness is headship and the nature of human femaleness is subordination, then what we have are two classes of humanity which are superior and inferior by their very natures. This is what egalitarians and feminists object to– and this is what CBMW, intentionally or not, is holding forth as a truth not simply of this world, but of the one to come.
What, then, happens to a verse like Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”? CBMW’s position is that this applies only to our standing in Christ in terms of salvation; that it means nothing with regards to male headship and female subordination in the body of Christ today or in eternity. But if headship and subordination are essential and therefore ontological traits of male vs. female humanity, and if headship and subordination are therefore going to continue even into the fullness of the New Creation, then Galatians 3:28 means exactly nothing at all. Our standing in Christ does not and never will add to female humanity this additional human quality of headship which it now lacks and always will lack. In Christ, in fact, there absolutely is “male and female,” now and forever.
And yet it is the CBMW which insists that egalitarians have a “chronic conundrum” of “how to reconcile passages that are . . . plainly inconsistent” with their worldview. Egalitarian interpretations usually show how historical-cultural understandings of particular texts give them different applications for today. They do not simply render a scriptural passage, to all intents and purposes, moot and fundamentally meaningless.
I try to avoid in principle speculations into the motives and internal character of other Christians, so I will not offer any opinion on why CBMW has removed their article “Relationships and Roles in the New Creation” from their website. I will simply say that the article does reflect the logical conclusion of male headship thinking, that its logical conclusion contradicts its own premise of male-female ontological equality– and that it contemplates a supposedly divine reality that I would really rather be excused from ever having to live in.
Excellent article. I love how you break down the philosophical categories of headship and submission to show how the two can never be equal.
Isn’t it funny how people pick and choose Bible verses out of context to prove their point? This whole argument is irrelevant because there is no marriage in the afterlife!
In this broken world, yes, we are subject to the laws established by God for our own good. The explicit teaching regarding roles of husband and wife in the New Testament is undenyable. The good news is, you don’t have to get married if you are not called to that state of life! One may just as well serve God single.
CBMW’s article really wasn’t about whether or not there was marriage in the afterlife. I don’t think they would go against Jesus’ teaching that there is no marriage in the afterlife– but that’s beside the point to them. They believe that men are designed for authority over women and women designed to be under male authority, whether it’s in marriage or not– and that this design will remain that way in the afterlife. They would not say it’s irrelevant just because Jesus said there would be no marriage.
But I think what you call the “explicit teachings regarding the roles of husband and wife” are not nearly as explicit as you think they are, and the New Testament certainly doesn’t set them out as “laws established by God.” Paul was not writing new and stricter law than what the Old Testament said.
What you are stating is a common interpretation, but one of the biggest problems in the church today is how people conflate Bible interpretation with the Bible itself.
I do believe the CBMW was affirming a belief in marriage in the afterlife (whether they realized it or not!) :
“…the new creation is, fundamentally, a return to the divine order that prevailed before the fall, it follows that male headship will remain in the new creation. . .”
Jesus referenced the story of Adam and Eve before the fall as the model of marriage for the New Covenant. Marriage is one man and one woman (created equally as images of God, yet distinctly complementary with different roles) united in an indissoluble union.
Marriage foreshadows our ultimate union with God in the new creation, where Christ is the Bridegroom united the Church, his Bride. It is here where the book of Revelation refers to recreated humanity: “…the Lord God will be their light, and they shall reign for ever and ever.” (Rev. 22:5)
I feel compelled to point out that Jesus the Son submitted to the Father while on this Earth. In no way does this make Jesus less than the Father. In fact Jesus was equal to the Father. It was a willing submission to the Father. And as far as Paul’s teaching about submission, most translations (especially those that include extra headings) ignore the verse that says “Submit yourselves to one another.” The passage then goes on to explain what that submission looks like in various human relationships (husband-wife, parents-children, master-slave (employer-employee in more modern terms).
Jonny, I believe the husband and wife are equal and complementary, yes, but not that either Jesus or Paul ever taught that the first-century model of husband-rule was God’s divine plan for all marriages so long as human history endures.
Jeff, I feel compelled to point out that Jesus’ submission to the Father was indeed on this earth, but that before He “emptied Himself and took the role of a servant” (Phil. 2), there was no authority-submission relationship within the Trinity. Indeed, the very concept would have been without meaning, because They were of one will and purpose, and submission is only a coherent concept when the will of one (say, the human desires of the Incarnated Son) may differ from that of the other.
As far as mutual submission is concerned, yes– that is what I believe the New Testament ideal for all relationships is.
Jesus nor the apostles claim to be teaching a “first century model” that was to be discarded in favor of anyone’s private interpretation of the Bible (which was compiled centuries later.)
The issue in question is specifically explained as having a theological basis, “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…” Eph 5:23. There is no room for doubt that this is not just some tentivive provision given for only the first century Christians, but this is God’s will, and God’s plan for marriage.
The confusion here, I think, is a misunderstanding that the husband’s leadership means domination and control. Ultimately, the promise is that the “two shall become one flesh” in Christ. This is really not something that can be explained in a nutshell, because it is at the very heart of the Christian mystery for those who choose marriage. “This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church…” Eph. 5:32.
The confusion here, I think, is a misunderstanding that the Ephesians passage is talking about a husband’s leadership, when (read closely), it’s really talking about his laying down of his leadership power and position in order to raise up his wife. There is no room for doubt that those who insist there is no room for doubt are overstepping their interpretational authority in order to impose their position on these texts on all the rest of us. There are plenty of biblical scholars with a high view of Scripture who disagree that wifely subordination is God’s divine plan.
I don’t believe a woman’s femininity is a disorder she needs to be “raised up” from by her husband. On the contrary, I believe that masculinity and femininity are not only gifts from God, but attributes of God!
I know as Christians God gives us to share in his Holy Spirit, which is neither male nor female, but spirit. But even in participation with God’s Spirit, we still remain male and female. There is no call for Christians to become androgynous, but rather to glorify God with the natural gifts he has bestowed upon them. Why does God reveal himself unto mankind as masculine, as Father? It is that very aspect of leadership he has ordained for husbands and fathers, and it is a shame when they can’t or won’t fulfill that responsibility due to disobedience.
I am trying really hard not to give interpretations of Scripture here, but rather just state what is written. This teaching is also stated in St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians (3:18) and St. Peter’s first epistle (3:1), albeit without the extra theological insight given in Ephesians. I just can’t conceive that the first century Christians, who were converted directly by the apostles, were so barbarous they had to be given a false testiment against marriage! I don’t agree with the CBMW’s extreme position, but the other extreme is damaging to the dignity of women as well.
Below is a link to a series of lectures by a religious sister about the gifts of masculinity and femininity, for any blog reader who might benefit from them. I hope all husbands and wives, will love, respect, and appreciate each other as God created them, as a gift of themselves to each other!
http://www.newmanconnection.com/institute/courses/rich-gift-of-love
May God bless you!
Jonny,
There is a certain irony in what you’re saying here. You say you are trying hard not to give interpretations of Scripture, but just to state what is written. You also say that femininity is not a disorder that a woman needs to be raised up from by her husband. What you’re not realizing is that in reading the text in the way it seems to you to be written, you are automatically and unconsciously reading it in light of your own 21st century Western viewpoint. In the 21st-century West, a woman does not need to be “raised up,” because the culture has already raised her up. But Paul wrote these words in the 1st-century Roman world, and in that world the wife absolutely did need to be raised up. She was considered inferior, completely under the power of her husband, and completely dependent on him for provision and nourishment (which was considered, btw, to be the function of the head towards the body in 1st-century Greek and Roman thought; hence the emphasis on the “head” as giving nourishment and growth to the body in Ephesians 4, which is the definition I believe we should carry forward into Chapter 5). Paul in Eph. 5 was telling husbands to behave as Christ did when He laid down His power and position as equal with God (see Philippians 2) in order to raise up the church to be glorious.
You are also using a false dichotomy when you indicate that there are only two alternatives: to embrace a male-leadership/female-subordination view of masculinity and femininity, or to embrace a complete androgyny, with no differences between male and female. But you see, if you don’t define maleness in terms of authority and femaleness in terms of subordination, you can allow for male and female mutuality while still giving room for men and women to be different from one another.
I really have no idea what you mean by saying “I just can’t conceive that the first century Christians, who were converted directly by the apostles, were so barbarous they had to be given a false testiment against marriage!” I never said Paul was giving anyone a false testament against marriage, and I can’t see what this has to do with the subject.
Finally, when you say maleness and femaleness are both attributes of God, but that God has revealed Himself as masculine, as Father, and that that is the very aspect of leadership God has ordained for husbands and fathers, you seem to be implying that the female attributes of God cannot have anything to do with leadership. Are mothers not leaders of their children? This also seems to be implying that men are more in the image of God than women are, because they reflect the power and authority of God while women cannot do so. Is that really what you mean? And if it is, then why did God tell both the male and the female human to have dominion in Genesis 1:26-28?
I would like to invite you to read a blog post of mine on the problems of assuming we are capable of reading the Bible “straight,” without interpreting it. http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/09/assumptions-make-you-know-whats-out-of.html
You also might be interested in “Is God’s Nature ‘Father’ and Not ‘Mother’?” found here: http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-gods-nature-father-and-not-mother.html
Jonny,
I ask this question all the time, since I really want to know the answer. In the Bible are there any qualities or attributes assigned to men and not to women, or assigned to women and not to men. I don’t mean positions, but attributes. I have asked this question many times, and have never been given even one example. But you seem to be sure there are some, and I am trying to research this, but haven’t found any yet.
Just want to let you know that I am not going for androgyny, because I see the importance of our physical beings, and do not support views that deny what this entails. But I don’t see this in the attributes of God and humans in the Bible.
Suzanne, I don’t think that there are qualities or attributes that are limited to men or women.
KR, I don’t believe that masculinity = leadership and femininity = subordination. That was the extreme position I don’t adhere to. Thanks for the links!