There are numerous books out there on the subject of manhood and womanhood, many of which argue for a feminist/egalitarian view of marriage and church leadership. Rachel Green Miller’s Beyond Authority and Submission: Women and Men in Marriage, Church, and Society has garnered attention because it is published by a historically conservative publisher (P&R Publishing) and is intended to criticize complementarianism from within. Though she questions whether she falls under the label “complementarian” (16), Miller says she affirms male headship in the home and opposes women pastors, two essential components of complementarianism.
On the positive side, Miller is an engaging writer and covers many interesting subjects throughout the book. The book formatting looks good, and this is an easy read. However, there are are three major problems with Beyond Authority and Submission:
(1) Miller does not support her thesis that “Much of what we believe about women and men is actually inherited from our Greco-Roman and Victorian ancestors” (257). She intends the book to be a criticism of complementarianism, claiming that “extrabiblical and unbiblical ideas have been incorporated into the movement’s teaching” and these have “more in common with Greek, Roman, and Victorian believes than with the Bible” (16). But showing that complementarian teaching has some things in common with Greco-Roman and Victorian culture (which she does) is not the same as showing that complementarians get their teaching from these other cultures (which she does not do). There is such as thing as common grace, and sometimes even pagan societies get things right.
Miller does not show that complementarians get any substantial belief from Greco-Roman or Victorian culture. But she does make several flawed attempts at such a link. For example, Miller claims that the Victorians “found support for their belief that women belonged in the home in Paul’s encouragement that young women be ‘keepers at home’” (Titus 2:5), but then she provides no argument as to how this indicts complementarianism. Showing that a people found support for a cultural belief in the Bible proves nothing other than that this belief may be correct. It does not help that Miller offers no alternative interpretation of this passage.
Further, Miller fails to interact much with the Reformers, likely because, following her line of thinking, she would be forced to claim they got their views from pagan culture rather than the Bible. She also unfairly quotes from a broad range of theologians and authors and then lumps them together as “complementarians,” followed by her criticism and questioning. Thus, the book fails to establish its thesis, and the reader is left wondering what the whole point actually was.
(2) Miller does not substantially interact with the most important passages on the subject of sex roles, including 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35. She briefly notes headship and submission in the home in Ephesians 5 (26-29) but does not extensively discuss 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 (“woman is the glory of man” and is made “for man”). While Miller devotes an entire chapter to male ordination (217-226), she only makes short mention of Paul’s instructions for men and women in church, focusing more on the issue of whether women are more easily deceived (223-225). When she does mention Paul’s instruction for women to “learn quietly” (1 Timothy 2:11) and “keep silent in the churches” (1 Corinthians 14:34), Miller says that Paul’s “concern was over disruptive behavior” arising from “women teaching men or asking questions during the discussion of prophecies” (220). Rather than arguing this claim, she merely footnotes a commentary on 1 Timothy.
But if Miller actually interacted with the relevant passages, she might not have made the claim that the “hyper focus on authority and submission” (257) comes from pagans rather than Paul. For the Apostle Paul speaks of women “submitting” in the church:
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Timothy 2:11-14).
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:33b-35).
Both of these passages teach that women should be in submission in the publicly assembled church gatherings, and Paul bases both on the creation account (Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2 and “the Law” in 1 Corinthians 14).
(3) Miller fundamentally misunderstands headship and submission by rejecting its grounding in the natures of men and women. She criticizes complementarians for teaching that God has designed men’s “nature” to be “leaders, providers, and protectors” and women’s nature to be “submissive and responsive” (107, 195, 230, 244). In denying a link between nature and function, Miller equates femininity with merely being a woman and masculinity with merely being a man—“If God made you a woman, you are feminine,” and “If God made you a man, you are masculine” (148-149). In response, we must ask—is there not such a thing as an effeminate man or a manly woman? The Bible does not tie masculinity and femininity solely to biology, but rather to God’s design for men and women. Thus, Scripture prohibits women from acting like men (Deuteronomy 22:5) and men from acting like women (1 Corinthians 6:9).
Miller’s flattening of the natures of men and women results in a rejection of hierarchy. She spends several pages criticizing the eternal functional subordination of the Son (EFS), which some complementarians (like Wayne Grudem) use to ground male headship. Now let me say that I do not think that the Trinity should be used to argue male-female roles, as these roles are based in creation and the natural order, not the Trinity. So Miller may be right in her criticism of EFS here. But she is wrong in her rejection of “hierarchy” among men and women. She says:
If a woman submits to male authority just because she is a woman, then she has no choice. She submits because she’s female. Contrary to this hierarchical view of women and men, submission in marriage and in the church is an example of equals agreeing to submit to the authority of leaders they have chosen for themselves. There is order, but not subordination (117).
Thus, we see that Miller thinks authority and submission boil down merely to a woman’s “choice.” But that is not what the Bible teaches, as Paul says “the husband is the head of the wife” (Ephesians 5:23). God has put the man in covenantal authority over his wife, and thus Paul commands a wife to submit to her authority and for a husband to love his wife who is under his care and protection (Ephesians 5:22-25). This is not a “choice” among “equals.”
Miller’s error is actually common to many who identify as “complementarians” today, as they tend to be afraid of the concept of hierarchy. Like Miller, they want to affirm the “equality” of men and women. However, men and women are only “equal” in some ways—in that they are both made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), they are both fallen in Adam (Romans 5:12), and they are joint heirs in Christ (Galatians 3:26-29). Men and women are “unequal” in many other ways—they have different natures (different bodies, minds, personalities, dispositions, etc.), and they thus do not relate to each other as equals. Their differing roles are rooted in differing natures. Though intended to be a criticism, Miller provides a Ray Ortland quote that gets this right—“So was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal . . . But she was not his equal in that she was his ‘helper’” (105).
God has designed the natures of men and women differently, and this results in hierarchy when the two sexes relate to one another. A husband really is in authority over his wife. Pastors/elders really are in authority over their congregation (an authority not permitted to women), and women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men in the church but are to be in submission (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Similarly, God has authority over us. We are not “equals” with God who submit to Him out of “choice.” Rather, we are created beings who should submit to God because He is in authority over us.
Conclusion
At root, Rachel Green Miller is an egalitarian. While she may affirm that only men can be pastors and give lip service to male headship in the home, she is sowing the seeds of feminism. She rejects hierarchy and grounds submission merely in “choice” rather than nature. Her feminism is apparent in several places, as she defends the temperance movement (81), modern pro-life feminists (97), women police officers (120), and women soldiers (133). She does not even seem to think that a man has the particular responsibility to provide financially for his family (132).
Miller concludes her book by saying, “Authority and submission are important aspects of our relationships, but they shouldn’t be the lens through which we view all of life” (257). This conclusion is in direct contradiction to the Word of God. We live in a world of authority structures. Our very relationship with God is one of authority and submission. We are to submit to Him as our Lord and King. And God has placed human authority structures over us—civil government over citizens, husbands over wives, and parents over children. This is God’s good design, and we must live accordingly.
