Dr. Trevor Morrow has written Equal to Rule as a “popular version” of the reasons why women should be ordained as elders and ministers within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI), “so that as many people as possible can have access to the key arguments.” Dr. Morrow has certainly succeeded in writing a popular version. His style is easy to read, and he avoids much of the specialised language and theological terms that would appear in the weightier tomes written at a more academic level – and I think this is to be applauded. He is a gifted and clear communicator, and it is easy to see why the book has received such glowing commendations.
However, has the desire to write a popular version caused the author to avoid the necessary theological arguments?
In the Preamble, on p.7, Dr. Morrow sets out his purpose for writing Equal to Rule.
This book expresses how I have responded to such queries [from those who question why women are in leadership in Lucan]. This is not written to persuade those who hold a different view. It is not polemical. I am hoping that it will be of help to the wider Church as a practical resource when it comes to the electing of elders and the calling of ministers.”
“This book expresses how I have responded to such queries [from those who question why women are in leadership in Lucan]. This is not written to persuade those who hold a different view. It is not polemical. I am hoping that it will be of help to the wider Church as a practical resource when it comes to the electing of elders and the calling of ministers.”
Therein lies the main issue I have with this book. Dr. Morrow wants to influence the thinking and practice of who is ordained within PCI without engaging with those who hold a different position to him on the ordination of women.
I think there are four major problems with Equal to Rule.
Problem 1 – Confusion of the Blessings of Salvation with Leadership Roles
Throughout Equal to Rule many verses and texts are quoted to show the equality of all believers in Christ. The majority of these texts refer to the blessings of salvation and our identity as God’s people. However, these texts are quoted and used in such a way as to suggest that women and men are equal in terms of leadership and authority. Nowhere is a distinction drawn between those texts that teach about salvation in general, and those that teach about leadership and authority in particular.
For example, on page 28, Dr. Morrow writes about the Twelve, and states that for the sake of continuity with the old covenant they had to be Jewish, free, and male. Then, in listing the third criterion for the new covenant people, he states that Jesus “enthusiastically invited and encouraged women with men to be taught and trained for leadership.” The conclusion is then drawn that “The leaders of the new Israel could then be Jews or Gentiles, slaves or free, men or women.” However, there is no explanation as to where this training in leadership is seen in the Gospels. Would discipleship not have been a better word to use in the first quote above? There is much evidence that women were treated on equal grounds in terms of discipleship, but discipleship and leadership within the church are not the same. Dr. Morrow seems to conflate discipleship with leadership. While there is a ‘kingly’ aspect, a leadership aspect involved in being a disciple of Jesus, that is not the same as the leadership and authority roles addressed in specific places in the New Testament.
Another example is found on page 30, where the assumption is made that Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet was Jesus preparing her for leadership (Luke 10:38-42). Any commentary consulted mentions that this is the posture of discipleship. Not all disciples become leaders in the church. This is typical of many places where discipleship would seem to be a better way of describing what is going on, rather than training for leadership. There were hundreds of people, thousands at times following Jesus to listen to His teaching. Jesus appeared to more than 500 after His resurrection – were these all being trained for leadership?
Problem 2 – No Substantive Engagement with Complementarian Thinking
Towards the end of the book, especially in the ‘Practical Steps’ and ‘Final Thoughts’ chapters, there is a little engagement with some complementarian thinking, but it is limited and presents an unbalanced view of complementarian thinking.
In all the key logical steps taken in Dr. Morrow’s arguments, in all the points made, and in any Bible texts that have a disputed interpretation, the only views mentioned are those that support the author’s overall thesis. The list of examples is too long to quote, but two should suffice to make the point.
In 1 Timothy 2:12, the Greek word authentein is argued by egalitarians to mean grasping authority in an inappropriate way, or an overbearing kind of authority (see page 70). Complementarians would favour ‘exercise authority,’ taking a neutral meaning. The meaning cited by Dr. Morrow is highly contested, but this is not even acknowledged.
On pages 48-50, it is stated that the idea of headship has to do with source, rather than authority. There is no mention that this is just one view, and most likely the minority view, of the interpretation of ‘head.’ When we remember that Paul, in Eph. 1:22, describes Jesus as the Head of the church and all things, and this in the context of Jesus being placed over “all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named,” it would defy the plain meaning of the text to even try to suggest that headship did not mean authority. So, when Paul then says in Ephesians 5:23, “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour” surely, once again, to deny a meaning of authority to the word ‘head’ defies the plain meaning of the text within the broader context of the letter.
In the majority of the book, egalitarian thinking and interpretations are presented without explaining that there are alternate views and interpretations. This is especially problematic given the book is a self-declared “popular version so that as many people as possible can have access to the key arguments” (p.13). However, when only one side of the “key arguments” is almost entirely missing, how much access is really being given to those arguments – if only one side is presented, against what can we measure its validity and truthfulness?
Problem 3 – Selective Use of Scripture
Throughout the book Scripture quotations are presented to back up points being made, which of course is good. In many instances, a version of the text, or a division of the paragraphs, is used that subtly changes the meaning. Again, two examples –
On page 46, Ephesians 5:21 is taken as the opening verse in the section that deals with marriage. This verse is then used to explain that both husband and wife must submit to each other within the marriage. This mutual submission, arising from 5:21, almost nullifies the points of difference Paul sets out between the husband and wife in what follows. The English versions, however, have Ephesians 5:21 as the concluding verse in the previous section, dealing with relationships within the church; and this is for good grammatical reasons.
Under point 3 on page 36, Acts 18:26 is used as a proof text to show that women had teaching authority over men in the New Testament church. The RSV is quoted, “but when Priscilla and Aquilla heard him they took him and expounded the way of God more accurately.” In any other English version checked, either “aside” (e.g., ESV, NAS) or “to their home” (e.g., NIV) is included after “took him,” which significantly nuances the meaning – Apollos was spoken to privately by Priscilla and Aquilla, thus removing this incident from the context of public teaching in a church setting.
Problem 4 – One-Sided Argument
All this means that the book presents an almost entirely one-sided argument. Consider one more example: the statement is made on page 37 that Junia was a female apostle.
There were apostles (other than the Twelve), who had a unique status of authority and respect in the early Church. They were witnesses to the Resurrection and had received a specific commission from Christ. Men like James, Barnabas, and Andronicus. And women like Junia (Romans 16:7)”
I found this paragraph a little vague. Does Dr. Morrow mean that these other apostles had the same unique status of authority and respect as the Twelve? If so, then the criteria for this kind of apostleship is given in Acts 1:21-26. It is doubtful whether anyone other than James could have met those criteria (see Gal. 1:19), but certainly not Junia, since Peter is quite specific in Acts 1 that a man is needed to replace Judas Iscariot, as Dr. Morrow points out on page 28.
If Dr. Morrow means a different kind of authority and standing from that of the Twelve, then in what did this authority consist, since he calls it a “unique status of authority.” Further explanation on this point would be very helpful.
We know that Barnabas was set aside by the Holy Spirit to serve alongside Paul (Acts 13:2) and that he was called an apostle (Acts 14:14). Apostle means ‘sent one’ and is used with the broader sense of ‘messenger’ in the New Testament, but only in two other places (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). The Twelve Apostles, who along with the prophets, were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20), are unique in their role.
The belief that Andronicus and Junia were apostles depends entirely on Romans 16:7, for this is the only place where they are mentioned. How do we know if they were witnesses to the Resurrection, or indeed if they had received a specific commission from Christ?
In addition, most English versions take Romans 16:7 to mean that Andronicus and Junia had a good reputation that led to them being well known to the apostles – not that they themselves are part of the apostles and stand out among that group. Based on this one verse, it is both unlikely and impossible to say for certain that Andronicus and Junia were apostles.
It would not be possible for Dr. Morrow to deal with every issue in Equal to Rule given its length and scope. However, to present the evidence in such a one-sided way with no caveats given, borders, I think, on the disingenuous.
Conclusion
It is obvious that Dr. Morrow is passionately committed to his cause and wants to enthusiastically promote it. However, in his desire to avoid the polemical, I wonder how much of a help this book will be? Those who read it and are aware of the opposing views may well be disappointed in not being better prepared to defend the cause of egalitarianism. While those who are not aware of the opposing views are encouraged to embrace egalitarianism without doing the work of searching the Scriptures, or tackling the views put forward by complementarians. How practical a resource will this book be when it may leave its readers unprepared for and maybe even unaware of the opposition to egalitarianism that exists?
Rev Alan Dickey