Where Do Biblical Egalitarians Go from Here?

October 01, 2004, by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

Download a printer-friendly version in PDF.

Since the early 1990s, the evangelical gender debate has become polarized and unproductive. We have learned much, solidified our arguments, and encouraged one another; but public discourse on the basic question of the relationship between gender and spiritual authority rarely informs and often offends.

A sea change in the public debate occurred around the beginning of the 1990s. Two prominent markers of this shift were the widespread dissemination of the CBMW’s Danvers Statement and the publication in Christianity Today of J. I. Packer’s article stating that the very nature and ministry of Christ demands that only men be church leaders. Both of these documents expressed a conviction that has come to be the operating assumption of gender traditionalists: biblical egalitarians (whether intentionally or unwittingly) are following culture rather than Scripture. With this conviction in place, many advocates of gender hierarchy ceased to listen and dialog and began to pronounce and condemn. The 1997 censoring of a gender-inclusive NIV Bible translation boldly defined the new (postmodernist) politics of the evangelical gender debate.

In the 1980s, each side had regarded the other as having a case worthy of serious consideration. Now, each side regards their view as truly representing biblical doctrine and tends to see the other side as hopelessly ideologically entrenched, influenced more by their psychological needs and cultural presuppositions than by a respectful assessment of Scripture. One consequence of no longer listening to one another is that often when patriarchalists set out to make their case, they acknowledge and respond only to the egalitarian arguments advanced prior to the 1990s; they often do not acknowledge or interact seriously with the more carefully developed egalitarian scholarship of the last decade. There seems to be a marked conviction among many patriarchalists that (1) all that can be said in favor of gender equality has been said long ago, and (2) the case has been closed.

In facing this challenging situation, there are four strategic questions for us to address: What ought we say? How ought we say it? To whom should we say it? Why do we say it?

First, the substance of our public persuasion should always be grounded in solid arguments derived from an uncompromisingly high view of Scripture. There is no need and no excuse to fudge on this issue. If our case is true, it is biblical; if it is not biblical, it is not worth defending. But the scope of our Bible-based arguments needs to encompass more of the theological and logical issues at stake in this debate. Discerning biblical truth consists of more than stringing together a series of prooftexts. We must encourage Christians to think theologically, systematically, and wholistically, asking questions of plain logic, such as, “Does this make sense? Does it cohere?” All truth is God’s truth, and a logical contradiction is not truth.

Second, the manner of our speaking should be marked (as God gives us grace!) by civility, courtesy, integrity, and dignity. We must resist the urge to respond in kind when we find our Christian character being questioned or reviled on account of our belief in biblical equality. Ridicule, propaganda, name-calling, self-righteous pronunciations, and even blackmail (if one has that sort of political leverage) are easy to indulge in; but by their very un-Christlike nature these methods can accomplish nothing of any value for the kingdom of God. The end does not justify the means.

Third, we must be mindful of those to whom we choose to speak. Because our energies and resources are limited, it only makes sense to focus our persuasive efforts on those most likely to heed the message. Generally speaking, there are three categories of Christians who do not accept biblical equality. The first category is that of the militant crusaders for male authority. These individuals appear to have no doubt, and no room for doubt, as to the wrongness of the egalitarian view and the rightness of theirs. Some have even stated publicly that egalitarians don’t genuinely care about biblical truth but are only imposing their personal preferences on the sacred text. A second category consists of those who—although quite persuaded of the traditionalist view—seem to be motivated solely by a desire to be faithful to the Bible and are often genuinely fearful of the supposed “slippery slope” to “feminism.” These individuals generally believe that biblical egalitarians—although wrong—do sincerely wish to be faithful to biblical truth. Those in a third category are also honestly and earnestly desiring to adhere to biblical truth, but they see some difficulties and discrepancies in the traditionalist belief system and so are willing to give the case for biblical equality a fair hearing.

With the second group, dialog can be productive in terms of clarifying issues and reaching mutual understanding, but not usually in terms of persuasion. People in the third group—along with the already-persuaded egalitarians—should be the focus of most of our efforts. Attempting to respond to those in the first category will only leave us depleted and discouraged.

Finally, our motivation should be to serve as instruments of the Holy Spirit in presenting the liberating truth that faith in Christ and the gifting of the Spirit is what qualifies us to discern God’s will, understand God’s Word and teach biblical truth to others. Our efforts need to become less of a battle and more of a ministry; and, like Jesus, we must focus on ministering to those who recognize their need of such ministry (Mt. 9:12-13). Our unswerving goal must be—again, like Jesus—to minister out of a place of ceaseless prayer and surrender to God’s will, relying on the power and protection of the Holy Spirit, and seeking always to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Mt. 10:16). Only what we do in the Spirit of Christ counts for anything in the kingdom of God.

(A shorter version of this essay was published in Prism, July/August 2000.)