The Bible teaches us plainly that although God makes men and women equal before Him (Gal. 3:28) He has not designed that their role in society be identical. He said that the man was to lead as “head” (1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:8–3:2). Today many professing Christians who support the popular “women’s liberation” movement resent this teaching of God’s Word and seek plausible excuses for rejecting it. Paul Ingeneri, Director of Education and Evangelism for the Seymour Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Mich., and a student at Calvin Seminary, finds an example of this kind of argument in an important new book. Mr. Ingeneri was also the speaker at the Reformed Fellowship annual meeting, October 4, in Grand Rapids.

This article is really a partial review of a book with this title. It is partial because one can in no way do justice to a book of some 200 pages in a review of only a few pages and because my focus is limited mostly to the 55 page section entitled “A Biblical Critique of Traditional Sex Roles.”

“A Calvin College Production”

The book comes with a 79 copyright and is written by Peter DeJong and Donald R. Wilson, Calvin College professors of sociology and anthropology respectively. It integrates biological, social-scientific, and Biblical evidence to (according to the jacket) “present a well-reasoned perspective on the issue of sex roles” and is really intended as a textbook for “marriage and family courses as well as sociology and social issues classes.” In light of the above authorship, claims, and intentions for use, the book merits our close scrutiny.

Gen 2 · “straw men” and an “oversight”

After a brief introduction of the authors’ principles of interpretation the relationship of males and females in creation and the fall is discussed. The conclusions drawn from Gen. 1 seem fair enough if not stretched. It is in Gen. 2 and 3 however that we begin to find difficulties. In discussing the possibility of a connotation of man’s headship implied in the word “helper” in 2:18, the authors apparently felt they need not give attention at this time to Paul’s inspired comments on this verse which are found in I Cor. 11:3, 8, 9 – presumably finding greater value in Clarence Vos’ word study of “helper.” The authors put forth the typical “straw man” as well . . . “The question is whether or not this concept in any sense denotes someone of lesser quality or ability.” Now, even the staunchest conservative does not believe that women are of lesser quality or ability and though the above quoted view may be traditional with some it is far from conservative.

Moving on to 2:23, it is interesting to note that Adam’s naming of the animals is mentioned but not man’s naming of the woman. Why this oversight? Could it be because in Hebrew thought name–giving is the prerogative of one in authority? In their handling of this verse also the “straw man” is again dragged out . . .” This (naming of the animals) is thought by some to indicate, or at least imply, that the male was created with greater intellectual ability than the female.” Think of the effect when these weak arguments are paraded before our college students as typical arguments of the opponents of the “progressives.” Throughout this section, other poor arguments and interpretations and provocative phrases such as “dominant-subordinate” and “superior-inferior” are set down as representative of traditional views based on the verses in question. We should note too that many view traditional and conservative as one and the same.

Headship does not cancel interdependence and mutuality

In discussing Gen. 2:21–24 overall, the authors conclude that it is only a chronological rendering implying mutuality and interdependence (which it does) but supplying no thought of headship.

Yet the creation order is not merely a chronological rendering, as Paul shows us, and it does imply a normative headship principle. In I Cor. 11:8, 9 (part of Paul’s inspired commentary on this passage of Gen. 2) we see that the Lord is concerned not only with chronology but with origin … an origin that implies headship. “Man does not originate (come from) woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” The beautiful interdependence described in Gen. 2:23, 24 is also echoed by Paul in I Cor. 11:11, 12 yet with no indication that this mutuality cancels the headship implied in Gen. 2 which Paul has just strongly reaffirmed in I Cor. 11:3, 8, 9.

Gen. 3 · the fall, the curse, and more “straw men”

On approaching Gen. 3 with their view that Gen. 2 implies only mutuality and interdependence, the authors are forced to the interpretation that “despotic tyranny or even loving headship” are both results of the fall and so the conservative arguments are made to look absurd . . .

“Certain details of this narrative suggest to some interpreters that a hierarchical relationship between man and woman existed prior to the fall and that because of the curse it changed from a kindly hierarchy into a despotic rule. One of these details is that the serpent tempted the woman rather than the man. Therefore the argument goes, she must have taken God’s commands less seriously than her husband, or she was more vulnerable than he, or possibly she realized that her character was weaker than his and that by eating the fruit . . . she would raise herself to equality with him.”

Compare the above caricature of conservative thinking with the presentation below based on Knight’s New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women (which is highly recommended):

Gen. 3 presumes that work, childbirth, and headship were “instituted” in Gen. 1 and 2

The order of authority that Paul discerns in Gen. 2 is assumed in Gen. 3. Gen. 3 presumes the reality of childbearing (Gen. 1:28) in which the woman will now experience the effects of the fall and sin (Gen. 3:16). It presumes the reality and dignity of work (Gen. 1:28; 2:15) in which man will now experience the effects of the fall and sin (Gen. 3:17ff.) And it presumes the reality of interdependence and headship established by God’s creation order (Gen. 2:18ff.) which will now also experience the effects of the fall and sin (Gen. 3:16). “He shall rule over you” expresses the effects of sin corrupting the relationship of husband (the head) and wife. Neither childbearing nor work nor headship are introduced here, but what are introduced are the effects of the fall on them.

And just as we try to eliminate pain in childbirth but not childbirth itself, and as we try to lessen the toil associated with work without discarding work itself, as somehow a result of the curse, we should try to eliminate tyranny, harshness, and oppressive rule in husband/wife—male/female relationships but not legitimate authority.

New Testament renewal of God’s image in Christ includes headship

The authors try to buttress their argument with a statement to t he effect that image renewal does away with any idea of headship relating to authority or final decision making . . . “Even a benign headship pattern should begin to change back to the egalitarian structure of creation.” Yet in every NT passage dealing with image renewal in Christ and male–female role relationships in grace we find the apostles urging husbands to take their legitimate place as heads of their households (and using the strongest possible supports for this exhortation) while at the same time telling husbands to love and honor their wives and not be bitter toward them. (See Eph. 5:22ff., I Pet. 3:1ff., Col. 3:18, 19) Note further that the Bible never builds its case for the role relationship of men and women in marriage on the effects of sin (Gen. 3:16) but on the pre–fall creation order in Gen. 2. (See Eph. 5:31; I Cor. 11:8, 9; 14:34; I Tim. 2:13, 14) “In I Tim. 2:14 Paul does refer to the fall after citing the creation order, but he does this to show the serious consequences of reversing the creation order on this most historic and significant occasion.” (quote from Knight)

A question for “progressives”

In the next section dealing with males and females in redemption it is stated that “the redemptive act of Christ was more than sufficient to counteract the results of Adam’s sin in the world” and I Cor. 15 is one of the passages cited. This is of course true, but I often wonder what “progressives” do with vs. 28 of I Cor.15 along with I Cor.11:3. Do they feel that these verses about the father’s enduring headship conflict with the Son’s equality in the Godhead or the Son’s eternal kingship (II Pet. 1:11) just as a husband’s headship is said to conflict with the idea of male-female equality before God?

Overconcern with overarching themes and supposed author intent

The Eph. 5, Col. 3, and I Pet. 3 passages are dealt with in a way that clearly illustrates the relativism lurking near the surface in the authors’ presentation. After rejecting various views of headship and never coming to grips with a well stated conservative view, an interpretation is proposed which is said to be “more consistent with the broader context of the passage.” In a nutshell, the authors find the grand theme of unity to be the context of these three passages and in relating them to this theme certain norms to be found in the vss. disappear as certainly as chaff from wheat during winnowing. One of the dangers that conservatives are aware of . . . this over-concern with and misuse of overarching themes and supposed author intent to the detriment (really the death and burial) of plainly stated principles is clearly illustrated by the following quotes from the book.

“The basic message of these three passages is not that there is a God-ordained timeless hierarchy of authority between husbands and wives, parents and children, and slaves and masters but conservatives don’t believe this of the latter – see I Cor. 7:21) but that (and the authors seem to say only that) a selfless service orientation and an affirmation of the worth of all persons is required in order to achieve unity in the body of Christ. This interpretation maintains that these three passages cannot be used to support the notion of a God-ordained division of authority between any of the relationships listed . . . Any argument for a division of authority must be established on the basis of other Biblical passages not these . . . The problem is how to unite those with different amounts of authority based on their culturally assigned social roles.”

Relativistic affirmations and forced interpretations 

We might quickly counter the above thinking with the comment that the parental authority of Eph. 6:1–4 is grounded in one of the ten commandments and these commandments are certainly not cultural assignations. Also the husband’s headship (Eph. 5) is analogous to the Lord’s headship of the Church which is likewise neither temporary nor culturally assigned. The authors are ready, however, with more relativistic affirmations . . . “Because of the many connotations of ‘head’ the interpretation it is given in the context of the man-woman relationship is largely a matter of the interpreter’s preferences as well as his basic sociological orientation.” I ask though . . . Is this really very far from my humanistic grad school professors telling me that all is relative but what t hey say is truth?

More on “head”

The word “head” in I Cor. 11:3 is then dealt with and its definition/interpretation is split three ways by the authors. The first (headship of Christ over man) is said to be “a priority of rule;” the second (headship of husband/man over wife/woman) is designated a “priority of time;” and the third set (headship of God over Christ)—a “priority of logical relationship.” Certainly this is an interpretation totally forced onto the text. The authors admit an element of authority in the first set . . . we have already shown previously that striking authority from the second set and interpreting I Cor. 11:8, 9 as merely a chronology (along with Gen. 2) is invalid . . . and when it seems obvious there is also an authority aspect in the third set based on Christ’s many statements of total submission to the Father’s will, we are told that this headship is only a priority of logical relationship.

Any room for the Holy Spirit?

Two more comments on headship by the authors lead us to ask what place they see the Holy Spirit taking in the creation of God’s Word. These quotations show us (by contrast) the importance of holding to inerrant Scriptures in which the authors do not err (because they are not merely working with the best human source of information available).

In non-modern societies—which were of course the only ones Paul knew—the male characteristically has more contacts with social units outside the immediate family . . . and the decisions he makes that affect the family he makes by virtue of this representative role . . . It is doubtful then that Paul saw an inevitable association between being the husband and being the head.

One major problem for interpreters of the Bible has been Paul’s references to Gen. 1 and 2, which speak of males and females in a way that appears to be foreign to the creation account. For instance, in I Cor. 11:1–15 Paul seems to suggest, on the basis of Gen. 2, that there is a hierarchical relationship between males and females; but when we examine Gen. 2, such an idea does not appear to be there at all . . . One of the ways of handling this is to claim that Paul understood the creation account better than we are able to, and that our inability to see there what Paul sees merely indicates his greater exegetical prowess . . . but to claim the OT contains a viewpoint that we cannot detect undermines our confidence in our ability to understand what Scripture says.

The quotations suggest two questions: First, Is Paul merely a commentator on the OT text in the same way that we are? Don‘t we believe that Paul’s writings are Divinely inspired? Secondly, (even if I did agree with the author’s claim that “Paul’s interpretation seems foreign to the OT text—which I don’t) there are several comments made by NT authors on OT texts that we find surprising and unexpected.” Do we then say they are wrong because we probably would not have come up with the same interpretations they did? Don‘t we have to recognize their inspiration in such cases? Although the authors try to ground their argumentation in the principle that the Bible should be understandable by the average reader, as I examine the texts I can’t find any basis there for many of their understandings of them.

An authority grounded in flux

There is some mention of “legitimate authority” in the book but this is rooted only in “a pattern of task allocation between males and females that is the result of their created reproductive differences.” Dare we ask who made them different or what happens to this “legitimate authority” when a couple has no children and both work—the wife not being “tied” to the smaller social arena of the home?

Several pages later the authors answer this second question and show that their concept of “legitimate authority” is grounded in the shallow sands of social flux . . . “It should be recognized that the male headship (representative) role that Paul speaks of is becoming less and less of a functional necessity in American society as women’s social participation becomes less limited by their reproductive role.”

Slavery is different!

Clearly husband-wife relationships are seen by the authors as on an exact par with master-slave relationships . . . not permanent and only regulated or “put up with” so that the spread of the gospel would not be hindered. But Peter and Paul see nothing of this kind of parity . . . Paul tells slaves that if they can get free to do so (I Cor 7:21) but neither apostle ever speaks to wives in a similar manner! On the contrary, they tell them to be submissive to their husbands as the Church to her Lord and not to try to exercise authority over the man. They then ground these directives not in some idea of the then present socially assigned task-allocations, which are subject to change, nor in reproductive differences, considerably muted today by day-care and bottle feeding, but in the Father’s headship of Christ, the law, the creation order, and the commandment of the Lord. The question in all of this is clearly one of the authority of God’s word and not one of the cultural baggage we bring to our interpretations or any inherent tension in Scripture resulting from the Apostles’ supposed playing of both sides of the fence in order to achieve unity and further the gospel proclamation.

Conclusions and questions

Though the authors’ arguments throughout justly wreak havoc with an Archie Bunker mentality, they often do not deal fairly or even come to grips with any intelligently stated conservative position on the issues at hand.

But can the Calvin College student discern this . . . when using this book as a text in the classroom under the influence of a “progressive” professor, and under pressure to accept his presentation in order to get a satisfactory grade.

Or further, can we as a denomination continue to stand if we keep hacking away at our biblical foundations while pulling notions of “legitimate authority” out of relativistic hats?

Hopefully the publication of texts like the one reviewed here will arouse the CRC conservative from his lethargy and force him to deal with these critical questions.