EFBT: An Argument for Hierarchy
August 25, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
It's Friday again and time to discuss Wayne Grudem's book, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth. Since Grudem's first two chapters describe the foundational thinking behind the rest of the book, I don't want to move past them too quickly. Too often people begin and end their arguments with “the Bible says,” and that's the end of the matter. Now don't get me wrong–the Bible does teach the truth and is perfectly authoritative, and in the sense of truth and authority, it is the end of the matter, but that doesn't mean the discussion about that truth ought to end there. For an emotionally charged subject such as this one, a stark command (“women can't be pastors”) that doesn't include a rounded explanation of the goodness of that command can be confusing and difficult to swallow. Even women (and men) who desire to submit to the teachings of the Bible could submit with their actions but still be in pain and perhaps even misunderstand the character of God if those actions don't make sense to them.
I've changed my perspective on these things quite dramatically over the past 10 years, and I still have not settled my understanding of all the details. At first the change came in submission to biblical truth, but from that moment to this, my life experiences have consistently proven its wisdom and strengthened my complementarian view. I've come to see male leadership as being a result of the positive qualities of women rather than a consequence of women's lack of masculine qualities. (I'll explain more of what I mean by this as we go.) I haven't heard this perspective much, but I think if we could start thinking of this subject in these positive terms, the entire tone of the discussion could change. Some of that may sound cryptic for now, but I will flesh it out in the coming weeks.
So for my first post on this book, I want to start at the beginning and defend the very notion of hierarchy and submission as positive and necessary for members of a body who are working together towards a common goal. First, consider this chart from Chapter One which deals specifically with the organization of the family:
Leaving behind the issue of husbands and wives for a moment, I can give you an illustration–one that is not so emotionally charged–of a beautiful hierarchy and submission in another kind of organized group I've been involved with for years, and in which I've seen these same errors and ideals lived out at various times: the hierarchy observed by musicians. As with the family or the church, musicians bring their varied parts together to create a complete, harmonious whole. But in order for this goal to be reached, there must be a clearly defined leader and the other members must submit to him or her.
Thinking specifically of flute quartets I've been involved with, I've found that the following is necessary for the creation of music–for the optimum fulfilling of the function for which the group was formed:
1. The leader must lead. (No wimps.) When no one's taking charge to move things along for four women flute players in a practice room, there's more talking and less playing.
2. The leader must bring the best out of the other players. (No tyrants.) I've been part of groups where the leader was so demanding and harsh that no one was able to play well. The good leader will encourage, expand, and increase the talent of the other players rather than beat them down so they're hampered by fear.
3. The players must play. (No doormats.) Each player has an equally valuable, unique contribution to the group. If even one of them is not making an effort to fulfill her role, the music fails.
4. The players must follow. (No usurpers.) There's a granting of authority to the leader that must take place on the part of the players if everything is to go smoothly. It's impossible to lead those who won't submit. If they are to accomplish anything as a group, the players must respect and support the office of first chair (though they are usually equally talented to, and occasionally even more talented than, the one who holds that office).
To sum up, every player–including the leader–must have her eyes on the goal (making music) rather than on herself.
As an example of how #4 can go terribly wrong, I was once assigned first chair flute in a quartet, but one of the players (who I suppose was upset she wasn't first chair) made the subtle decision in her heart not to grant me the authority to lead her. What was supposed to be fun quickly became tedious as it proved impossible for the four of us to create anything together without the joyful and productive submission of all the players to my leadership. Her eyes were on herself; her desire was for my role instead of for the ultimate goal of the creation of music, and so she was not able to obtain either, and she destroyed the effectiveness of the entire group. Nobody was happy about this, including her.
As an illustration of error #1, I'm currently part of a community concert band where the director has the silly idea that there should be no first chair–no designated leader with the responsibility of governing the section. He thinks that since we're all there to have fun, we don't need a hierarchy. Wrong. This lack of an assigned leader has led to tension, confusion, and hurt feelings. Who's going to play the solo? Who should play which part? Who has the right to address those who are out of tune or playing something incorrectly? Who gives the final word for decisions that affect the flute section as a whole? Trust me, having an “equal partnership” structure for the entire section keeps us from functioning in an optimal way.
On the other hand, when everything works correctly and the loving, humble headship of the leader meets the joyful, intelligent submission of the other players, the result is fulfilling for all–and not just for those who are playing, but also for everyone who is listening. This, to me, has become the illustration of hierarchy and submission that finally helped me make sense of the subject. Having been both the submitter and the submittee, I know the value and joy of both, and I also know the irritating ineffectiveness that ensues when the structure is not accepted. Luckily, musicians usually do accept and work within the structure that has been created for their good. Perhaps this is because they understand and appreciate the necessity of every part and have experienced the value of submission, even submission among equals. But imagine what would happen if all musicians were to reject submission just as many in marriage relationships have done.
I'll save the question of why the husband has been declared the leader for another post. For now, I'll just say that I know there's nothing wrong with second chair–that it's a crucial role to be filled if the greater goal is to be reached together, as one. And in fact, I quite enjoy filling it.
Related posts:
- EFBT: What Does Biblical Hierarchy in Marriage Look Like?
- Is Hierarchy Possible in a Church of Equals?
- EFBT 2.2: Men and Women in Ministry
- EFBT: Complementarian Motivation
- EFBT 1: A Summary of the Complementarian Position
- EFBT: Complementarian Methodology
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Gender Issues, Main Page
content rss
August 25th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Hi, Amy,
You did a great job of explaining why there is a need for heirarchy in different kinds of relationships.
I have spent a little time in discussion with egalitarian feminists, and they will say that they believe in heirarchy – just not gender-based heirarchy. Here is what I have observed.
When an egalitarian feminist is in charge, she is very much in charge – and will not hesitate to exercise her authority. IOW, the problem is not heirarchy itself, it is gender-based heirarchy.
I'm thinking more and more that the defense of complementarity in marriage and in the church should start with the Fatherhood of God.
God bless,
Donna L. Carlaw
PS
I have “wiped out” in discussion with egalitarians. So, don't mind me…I have a bad reputation.
August 26th, 2006 at 2:38 am
Thanks again for continuing to take on Grudem tome. It's a great book, and the first few chapters provide amazing clarity on this subject.
Big Chris
Because I said so blog
August 26th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Donna, the idea that hierarchy is undesirable in itself (either in the family or in the church) is gaining increasing popularity these days. I actually haven't had many discussions with egalitarian feminists on the subject, but I'm hearing it from many other directions, so I think it's worth addressing.
Your observations reminded me of another point: I think that leaving it up to the couple (in a marriage) to determine who is the leader leads to the same problem I mentioned about the band I'm playing in currently. If someone outside the relationship (the band director, or in the case of marriage, God) designates the leader, it's settled and people can respect the office and work well together. But if the people within the relationship have to decide for themselves, there will be no end of striving and competition between them–not to mention resentment that one has taken leadership when he (or she) has no more real authority than the other.
Outside designation (from someone with even greater authority) is very important for creating a structure that everyone can work well within.
August 27th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Hi, Amy,
Okay. Yes.
Even so, egalitarians do not have problems with heirarchy, per se, any more than the rest of us.
In the egalitarian marriage, both the husband and the wife are supposed to submit to one another. Sometimes the husband leads, and sometimes the wife, is the idea.
I'm not an egalitarian, BTW. Their mutual submission idea in the marriage bond is the least of their problems, IMO. There's a lot of error and outright heresy creeping into egalitarian circles. It is getting more blatant, as the CBE shifts to the left, along with prominent seminary profs and authors.
I'm just not sure if you are getting ready to set up a straw man argument, that egalitarians are anti-heirarchy.
No problem.
God bless,
Donna L. Carlaw
August 28th, 2006 at 12:09 am
“I'm just not sure if you are getting ready to set up a straw man argument”
My purpose is not to argue against CBE/egalitarians so much as it is to build my own case for what I believe from the beginning, so I wasn't meaning to imply anything about them specifically. But thanks for clarifying that point in case anyone misunderstood.
August 28th, 2006 at 1:12 am
You're welcome.
God bless, and keep up the good work.
Donna L. Carlaw
August 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Amy, I take your post to indicate that you reject egalitarianism in favor of hierarchy. My question for you is: what's your take on those who defend Biblical hierarchy but insist that they're doing so within an egalitarian framework?
Hank Hanegraaf, for instance, contends that men and women are “ontologically equal” but ordained for different roles. To me, that's either sweet-sounding nonsense (at best) or being deliberately disingenous. Of course being first flute is not equal to being second flute. That's not to say — as you do in your post — that people can't enjoy being second flute. But we shouldn't pretend that they're the exact same thing.
In other words: hierarchy and egalitarianism are incommensurate. Either the Bible spells out a different (and subordinate) plan for women that denies that they are ontologically equal to men; or it affirms their equality but does not prescribe particular roles. You can have one or the other, but not both
Thoughts?
August 29th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I'm not a feminist, and my household is a traditional one. My husband works, I stay home with the kids. We like it. But I find myself wondering what it means in a Biblical sense, or as a Christian, if he's first chair and I'm second. In other words, what are the practical applications of this? After 5 years of marriage and 2 children, I've noticed that we've automatically developed different areas of expertise. We even joke about it: I'm ignorant of computers because he's the expert; he can't spell and his spelling gets worse by the year, because he knows I'll tell him how to spell any word he needs. These are pedestrian examples, but they point to a relationship where husband and wife split up areas to be better at and in charge of. How does this reconcile with the hierarchy concept? What does the hierarchy really mean in real life?
August 29th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
This “how can we be ontologically equal, and yet be limited by our gender?” is a question that egalitarians raise. If we are ontologically the same, then there can be no valid reasons for limiting the roles of women in the home, the church, or in society. The egalitarians pick up on that “equal, yet different roles” idea and rightly point out that the complementarians can't limit women's roles based on such an equation. It makes little sense.
I think that there's a problem with us complementarians insisting that we are ontologically equal. We are not.
We are all fully human – male female, child, adult, embroyo, zygote, handicapped and even the brain dead are all created in God's image, and are fully human. Are we all equally human, as in male=female? No. Are we all the same? No, we are not.
The Bible never speaks in these terms of equality as post-modern society understands it. We are not all equal. We are all individuals. We are all created in the image of God. We are all fully human. We are not all equal.
Think of the snow flake. There are no two alike, yet they all share a common “snow flakeness”. Each one is unique. I don't see that God creates equality. He creates uniqueness, even within what appears to be sameness. He does not create redundancy. If men and women are equal, then one of us is redundant.
It is the “equally human” idea that can be downright dangrous to human life – as shown by the abortion laws in the US since Roe v. Wade. An unborn child was not viewed to be equal to its mother as far as humanity goes, therefore the mother can choose to get rid of that collection of cells growing inside her body.
I won't go into detail how secular egalitarianism – better known as socialism or even Communism – has been one of the most destructive forces that the earth has ever known. It is easy to document this, if anyone wishes. I won't go into detail about what I have observed myself in my visits to egalitarian societies. I was given a very cruel nick-name for pointing out to egalitarians where much of their thinking comes from.
Are we all human in the same way, IOW? Does male=female ontologically? I don't think that it does, but we all reflect God's image and are created for His purposes and glory.
We were not created for the same purpose. We were not designed to do the same things. Our gender is very much part of who we are. There is no such thing as a non-gendered human being. We are not evolving towards androgyny, the ideal of many egalitarians.
I AM a woman, a wife, and a mother – ontologically. A man is none of those things, even though we are both created in the image of God, and are both fully human. I was created to fulfill those roles – and more. Woman, wife, mother go way beyond what I do.
My husband IS a man, a husband, and a father. He was created to be those things, to fulfill those roles – and more.
This is a pitfall of these discussions. We dare not insist that men and women are equal ontologically, and then turn around and insist that we can't all do the same things.
So, we need to look at what we were designed for.
Yes, as far as our salvation goes, we stand on the same spiritual ground of the finished work of Christ as our brothers in Christ do. In that relationship there is no difference. In Christ, there is no male or female.
However, I did not quit being a woman when Christ saved me.
Anonymous Andrew made some good points, IMO.
Well, I'm harrassed you enough for now, Amy.
God bless, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw
August 30th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Sure, radical egalitarianism is probably a bad thing (though I don't know how one could substantiate the claim that it is “one of the most destructive forces the earth has ever known”) — but let's face it, radical anything is usually pretty bad.
Contemporary egalitarianism typically takes the form of equality of opportunity; namely, that all persons should be equally free to compete on merit for offices and positions within society that we consider to be economic and social goods. This is obviously not socialism/communism, and it's also obviously not Biblical hierarchicalism.
Some people value contemporary egalitarianism; others — like Deborah and Amy — value hierarchicalism. All I was pointing out was that this is a real choice, and that you can't have both.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Deborah, good question. And all of you, good questions. Thanks! Rather than answer you all separately, I'm going to try to cover most of them in a new post on Friday.
August 30th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Hey, Andrew, and Amy for kindly allowing this dialogue on her blog,
Don't mind me. I am used to the more radical kind of egalitarian feminists who love to say that patriarchy is evil, and the cause of just about all the evil in the world! I like to remind them of the dangers of radical egalitarianism – esp. in its Maoist, Leninist, Stalinist forms.
Yes, you are correct. Extremes are not good things.
The problem is in the human heart, and a change of structure will not necessarily produce a nicer, kinder rule, as human history has proven many times over.
I like your “equality of opportunity” comment, which I would tend to agree with in many ways.
Even so, when a woman and a man decide to get married, and are both Christians, then there is a model that God gives us in His Word. It is a balanced model, where woman was made for man, but lest man get all proud, man is reminded that they came from a woman, their mother.
There is interdependence within a gender-based heirarchy.
I'm rambling, now.
Then, there's the idea of what women tend to do, not what they can or should be allowed to do. Women tend to get married, leave their professions, – or work part time – and raise children.
Men tend to get married, and work hard to provide for their families, even after all the attempts of the radicalism of the past decades to change that pattern. It sure seems to be a matter of nature over nurture.
Thank you for you comments, Andrew, and please take care,
Donna L. Carlaw