Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Internal Contradictions and Other Fallacies

The thought of a woman directing a man offends men, but because they cannot say that women are inferior, or less competent, wherefore they ought not direct men, theologians must use some seriously ingenious ways to persuade people that God has given men the right to lead.

Fallacy # 5 Gender Roles

Piper tries to persuade the readers of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that God has given men the "role" of leading, whether they lead or not.

Find it in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Piper:(see footnotes)

In his essay A Vision of Biblical Complementarity, John Piper outlines the different roles for men and women: the man was created to lead, provide and protect and the woman to affirm, receive and nurture. Piper creates the roles using the head-body metaphor in Ephesians 5 as an analogy; as the human head is the source of guidance, food and alertness for the body, so is the man to the woman.[1] While Piper calls it an impossibility for women never to influence or guide men,[2] he explains that a woman can lead, provide, and protect if a) a man is not present, b) a man is present, but unwilling to perform the role, c) a man is present who is willing to perform the role but is unable, or a woman is in a position or rank above him, in which case the woman must assume a correct demeanor and accept culturally accepted courtesies (such as opening of the door) in order to affirm the unique role of man as a leader and protector.[3] Because women should influence men in a way that does not compromise the leadership of men, some roles are not open to women.

Some roles would involve kinds of leadership and expectations of authority and forms of strength as to make it unfitting for a woman to fill the role. … To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man is personal and directive it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order.[4]

Piper explains further that a woman may pray for a man, but not be a drill sergeant, since the non-directive influence is about petitioning and persuasion, not giving commands. The closeness of the relationship between a man and woman is the most important indicator of the appropriateness of the directive influence: a woman can be in a position of authority and give directions only if they are non-personal in nature – authority in marriage is out of the question.[5]

Piper’s view on teaching follows the same guidelines: since it is impossible for women never to teach men, they are allowed to do so in the church if it does not dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility to teach and lead, it is allowed by the elders, does not make the woman a de facto spiritual shepherd over men and is not a “strong or forceful pressing of men’s consciences on the basis of divine authority.”[6]

Piper considers it to be an order of creation for the man to be responsible for providing for the family and the woman to care for the children.

The point of this Genesis text is not to define limits for what else the man and the woman might do. But it does suggest that any role reversal at these basic levels of childcare and breadwinning labor will be contrary to the original intention of God, and contrary to the way he made us male and female for our ordained roles. Supporting the family is primarily the responsibility of the husband. Caring for the children is primarily the responsibility of the wife.[7]

Piper does, however, recognize that men cannot always provide for and protect the family due to various circumstances. If a man is unable to physically perform his role, he retains his masculinity by sensing his responsibility to lead, provide and protect and by accepting it as given by God. A man who does not sense or affirm his responsibility to lead, provide and protect, is immature and incomplete in his masculinity.[8] If a woman has to perform the role assigned to the man, she must avoid a role-reversal by having a proper feminine demeanor. The key to retaining proper femininity is for the woman to have the right disposition: she must sense that the role would properly be done by a man if one was available or willing.[9] What is important is not what roles men and women actually perform, but how they, as men and women, relate to the roles they should and would perform if they lived in a perfect world, as originally created by God, without sin, sickness and death. In a later chapter, Piper concludes that “headship does not prescribe the details of who does precisely what activity.”[10] But one is tempted to ask why the roles are necessary if they do not define precise activity – unless, of course, their sole function is to exclude women from leadership.[11]

---

[1] Piper and Grudem, 63.

[2] Ibid., 50.

[3] Ibid., 50-51.

[4] Ibid., 51.

[5] Ibid., 52.

[6] Ibid., 69-70.

[7] Ibid., 43.

[8] Ibid., 36.

[9] Ibid., 46.

[10] Ibid., 64.

[11] Elliot believes the essence of femininity is receiving, which defines the woman’s role as subordinated to the man, “Femininity receives. It says, “May it be to me as you have said.” It takes what God gives – a special place, a special honor, a special function, and glory, different from that of masculinity, meant to be a help. In other words, it is for us women to receive the given as Mary did, not to insist on the non-given, as Eve did” (Piper and Grudem, 398). But also masculinity receives by saying, "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done" (Matt. 26:42). It receives as Jesus did, not power and prestige, but humble servanthood. It does not insist on the non-given, a higher position on a manmade hierarchy, but accepts the given - the equality of men and women.