How Not To Argue Egalitarianism

Okay, this takes a little setup. First, there was a woman, Candace Cameron Bure, who wrote a book titled Balancing It All, where she writes, among other things, about submitting to her husband. This, of course, causes a problem in today's modern society, so she sought to clarify to the Huffington Post that she is using "the biblical definition" of submission and arguing from Scripture that it's required. Silly girl. So then Sarah Bessey, the author of Jesus Feminist and self-professed "happy-clappy Jesus follower" and "nondenominational charismatic", decided it was important to write In which I disagree with Candace Cameron Bure about "biblical marriage". Whew! So here we are, all ready to examine the faulty approach to an argument with someone defending a biblical position on complementarianism.

Bessey argues that Bure (Keep the names straight. Bessey opposes biblical complementarianism and Bure favors it.) holds a "not necessarily biblical" view. Indeed, she argues "The idea that a Man is the Head of the Home has its roots in secular ancient culture, not in the Word of God or the created order of humanity." (Bold is hers.) Not only is it "not in the Word of God", but she goes on to argue that "the idea that, as a wife, I would need to 'become passive' or smaller or somehow less in order to make my marriage work is damaging and wrong."

Okay, there's the arguments. It's not biblical, and it's damaging and wrong.

Error #1: Sarah has decided to define "submission" as something other than Candace did. Bure specified that "I am not a passive woman" in the book and in her interview with HuffPo. "Become passive" is not in view ... anywhere. Except, of course, for Sarah's view. This is a common logical fallacy called -- you know what it's called by now, right? -- strawman. Build up a false position that the other person does not hold and then explain why it's wrong. Don't argue that way.

Error #2: Sarah argues that the concept of male headship in the home is not biblical. She does so by ignoring ... the Bible. Now, to be quite fair, she doesn't actually ignore the Bible. She agrees that "Patriarchy and hierarchy within marriage were consequences of the Fall (see Genesis 3:16)." Ummm, Sarah, if you agree that it's part of the Fall, in what sense is it not biblical? Okay, moving on. She agrees that Scripture does indeed support Candace's position -- "particularly Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18-19, and 1 Peter 3:1-2". Umm, Sarah? I'm confused. Doesn't this mean that it is indeed biblical? So here's the basis of Sarah's position that male leadership is not biblical. "Those passages of Scripture," she argues, "are, in fact, a subversion of the Greco Roman household codes in effect at the time." She goes on to argue in bold that "Paul and Peter used the codes, not because they were perspective or ideal, but because they were familiar and they were showing the church how to move within the world while not being of the world." There you have it. Peter and Paul were wrong. "Peter and Paul worked within imperfect systems because any outright challenge to the law of the land would bring persecution down upon the Church in great number. In fact, the Apostles 'advocated this system, not because God had revealed it as the divine will for Christian homes, but because it was the only stable and respectable system anyone knew about' at the time," she argues (with a quote from the Women's Bible Commentary).

If you're going to argue against a biblical position, you will need to do it with the Bible. Arguing that the Bible is not a divine revelation and that Peter and Paul (among the rest) were not divinely inspired doesn't help in making a case against a biblical argument. It might go a long way toward removing a biblical argument. Arguing that the Word of God is not the Word of God will not go far in this line of discussion. It will certainly allow for discarding the Word of God (since no such thing actually exists), but it doesn't answer a biblical position. Here, let me put it this way. Arguing "It's not the Word of God" doesn't answer the argument "This is what it says." You see?

Bessey argues for "mutual submission". She suggests that "wives submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ" and that this is part of a "never-ending, life-giving circle of mutual submission and love". I'm not at all clear in what sense she sees the Church's submission to Christ as "mutual". Nor is there any reason to agree with her argument since she has already made it clear that Paul's position (which she quotes) is not divinely inspired, but purely cultural pragmatism. Oh, and by the way, if you're going to argue against biblical positions, be careful not to ignore entirely the clearest biblical arguments, such as "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) for man as the head of the home or "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake" (1 Cor 11:8-9) for "the created order of humanity."

Skipping clear Scripture doesn't make it go away. Arguing that it isn't at all inspired doesn't make "This is what it says" false. Holding to a false position of what the term ("submission") means doesn't make the actual concept false. Bad lines of argument. Avoid those whenever you can.