This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www

This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where other free articles are available on similar subjects.

A Review of a Review

A Response to Thomas R. Schreiner's Review of

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis's book, A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality

by Dave Leigh

Recently an anonymous chat room participant at the Christians for Biblical Equality website created a stir by posting an unauthorized copy of a Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood book review on this discussion page. Though its content offended some and amused others, I want to thank whoever posted Thomas R. Schreiner's review of Rebecca Merrill Groothuis's book, A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality. Since I have not yet read the book, I found this critique of her position informative and revealing. Just as the Pharisee's treatment of Jesus reflected more on them and their legalistic flaws than it served to damage Jesus' reputation, this review told me more about the weaknesses complementarianism than about Groothuis or her work.

Since I have not read the book, I would be foolish to defend it. Let me assure you I will neither endorse nor condemn it. Schreiner calls it "one of the clearest books in defense of egalitarianism .... a lucid and logically forceful case for egalitarianism in a volume that is of moderate size." I see no reason to doubt this, since Schreiner is as sensible a complementarian as ever I've read.

I realize others might ask, "Why this high praise from a complementarian?" And: "Does Schreiner really think this, or is he just trying to impress readers for when he skillfully dissects and discredits the book?" I for one will give Schreiner the benefit of the doubt since his review does neither of these things.

The review is, admittedly, a bit confusing. Though Schreiner begins by describing Groothuis's book in glowing terms, subsequent paragraphs contradict this. He begins by acknowledging the "need to discern at the outset the distinctive contribution of any new work on the issue," and manages to propose what Groothuis's distinctive contribution might be. But then he rejects it without interacting with her key points or giving any kind of reasoned response to the issues she raises. Some may see this as pontificating and prejudicial derision. I prefer to give both Schreiner and Groothuis the benefit of the doubt by inferring from Schreiner's hermeneutical comments that the book may just be better than his capacity to appreciate.

Schreiner summarizes what he calls the book's contribution, which he says, "drives the engine of the entire book." Quote:

Groothuis argues at some length that the notion that women are subordinate in role but equal in essence is logically fallacious. She notes that subordination in and of itself does not necessarily connote inferiority of being. For example, children for a certain period of their lives are subordinate to their parents. But if one insists that all women, in all circumstances, and for all their lives are subordinate to men, then (says Groothuis) it follows that women are inferior to men. Traditionalists have not been willing to face that fact, according to Groothuis, and thus they have equivocated in saying that women are equal in being and essence and yet have a different role. The only way to preserve a truly biblical view of equality, says Groothuis, is to recognize that equality of essence between men and women also involves equality of opportunity. This is not to say that all women are qualified to serve, say, as pastors. Her point is that all roles must in principle be open to women, and if women have the ability and talent to fulfill the task under consideration, then they should not be prevented from fulfilling that role merely because of their gender.

This, it seems to me, is a significant contribution for Groothuis to make, though Schreiner objects to it. Curiously, he admits this argument "certainly merits a detailed response," but brushes it off by stating "that is not possible here"! One wonders if it is possible anywhere. To dismiss what he calls the book's driving engine in this way is quite remarkable, especially considering his subsequent criticism of Groothuis. Quote:

The fundamental flaw in the book is that biblical exegesis is not the foundation of her argument. Even though part one is titled, 'The Biblical Case for Gender Equality,' there is scant evidence that biblical interpretation informs her discussion, nor is it at all clear that Groothuis derives her view of equality from the biblical text. She brings to the text her western, democratic, and enlightenment view of equality (p. 46), and her whole argument flows from this philosophical starting point.

Since the review does not offer a biblical objection to Groothuis's "contribution," its readers may suspect Schreiner also works from a philosophical starting point outside the text (and a weak one at that). But this is a curious charge for someone to make who is as knowledgeable about biblical interpretation as Schreiner claims to be. Surely he knows there is not a human being alive who doesn't begin from a philosophical starting point outside the text. For this reason Schreiner must know it comes as good news if Groothuis is willing to state and explicate her own philosophical horizon.

That her perspective includes time-tested principles reflected in the historic, Judeo-Christian, "western, democratic, and enlightenment view of equality" is even more encouraging. What should frighten us is people who overlook (or conceal) their own philosophical preunderstandings and who therefore approach Scripture with their own prejudices left unexamined. People like this are prone to declare their own conclusions as if by fiat and without explanation, yet regard them as derived from scripture or as scripture itself -- not unlike Schreiner's review. If CBMW members perceive themselves as opposed to western thought, democracy, and the insights of the Enlightenment, this is not only revealing but alarming.

Yet it is clear from Schreiner's remarks that Groothuis does indeed interact with biblical passages throughout her book, especially in the second part. Her crime in Schreiner's court seems to be that she is willing to admit possibilities CBMW dogmatically denies. For example, Schreiner writes that "it is certainly 'possible' that the word kephale means 'source.' But the improbability of such a definition has been demonstrated by the thorough studies by Grudem and Fitzmyer." In view of this claim, it is puzzling how he can fault Groothuis's treatment of biblical texts as a "retread of arguments which are quite familiar to those engaged in the discussion." Invoking Grudem is a tired retread in itself -- and it would be hard to find studies more repetitious and philosophically biased than his.

If Groothuis ignores the work of Grudem and Fitzmyer, as Schreiner claims, it is to her credit that she limits her sources to credible scholarship. It is a serious blind spot in Schreiner's inflated estimation of his own interpretation to cite them, especially while questioning whether or not "Groothuis's work reveals a patient listening to the text to see what is really there." How can Schreiner question Groothuis's method, suggesting she imposes meaning and understanding on the text, when he shamelessly ushers in Grudem and Fitzmyr's "probable" meaning of kephale? He does this despite 1. Its conflict with its immediate contexts in Paul's writings, 2. Its conflict with the historically-orthodox view of the Trinity, 3. The considerable evidence from ancient literature that the head was viewed as a source, and 4. The widespread agreement of the best scholars that Grudem and Fitzmyer miss the boat.

To summarize, Schreiner's concern for method is commendable. But the approach to scripture and to issues employed in his review are more troubling than its conclusions. We appear to disagree about what good method is. We agree that the effects of bad method "applied to other areas of evangelical theology ... would be deleterious indeed," which is why Schreiner's review is so disturbing.

Despite the review's confusing, flawed, and weak presentation, I will not let it cast doubt on Schreiner's endorsement of A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality as a "clear," "lucid," and "logically forceful" book. In fact, I look forward to reading it. Thanks to Schreiner's review, I do so with but one nagging doubt -- that Groothuis will be able to paint a more incriminating picture of complementarianism than CBMW presented when it published his review.