In his response to my article on 12 Corinthians 7 which engages with his book, Andrew Bartlett suggests that I have engaged in strawmen arguments. I was a little surprised at this suggestion Here’s an online definition of what a strawman is.
“A straw man argument is a logical fallacy that involves misrepresenting an opponent’s position and then arguing against that misrepresentation. The term comes from the idea that a scarecrow is a weak, easy-to-defeat opponent.”
Now, it is possible of course that I have misunderstood Andrew’s argument or that I’ve made an error in my response by using different language that results in a different point to what Andrew was making (I don’t think I have) but that’s different to making a strawman argument, selecting a weak position not held by the other person in order to defeat it.
Well, let’s have a look at the potential strawmen.
Strawman 1
Andrew says:
“There is a small but significant difference between my words ‘a rather obvious place to start’ and Dave’s version ‘the obvious place to start’ (emphasis added). The nature of the difference between my actual reasoning and Dave’s version of it becomes clear where he suggests that treating 1 Cor 7 as the potential lead passage may give it too much weight and risk skewing the argument.”
I think that here he is putting a lot of weight on three letters, the definite article “the” noting that it is Andrew who has added the emphasis, not me. I think that this assumes a kind of choice of language down to the words which may be the case when barristers are speaking in his courtroom but isn’t really what is going on in this kind of conversation. This doesn’t mean that precision doesn’t matter but I think it does mean that we might do better to check whether the other person understood something different from your words or intended something different in their words.
And, therein lies the important question. Did Andrew mean something different to what I took away -and/or did I intend something different to what he was saying. Is there a difference between saying that somewhere is “a rather obvious place to start” and saying “the obvious place to star”? I would suggest not, particularly when the person who is saying that it is “an obvious place to start” goes on to do just that.
Now, my point is that no I don’t think it is an obvious place to start and so it’s not the place I would start. It’s neither. The second part of that is crucial, because whether or not Andrew considers 1 Corinthians 7, the obvious place or an obvious place, I do consider a different passage (Ephesians 5), not only “an obvious place” but “the obvious place to start” and so, this rules out other options as “an obvious place” if I’m right.
I guess that it’s possible for Andrew to argue that whereas I understood it to mean that 1 Corinthians 7 is an obvious place to start because that’s how the flow of logical argument to work, what he really means is “look we could start pretty much anywhere, it doesn’t matter where, it doesn’t affect the argument and as Paul says a lot here an das it never gets talked about, then this feels like as good a place to start as any..” It could be that this is what Andrew means, in which case, I think that’s fair enough. I would however disagree. I think that it does matter where you start and that takes us to the next part of Andrew’s response to the first supposed strawman.
Andrew goes on:
The nature of the difference between my actual reasoning and Dave’s version of it becomes clear where he suggests that treating 1 Cor 7 as the potential lead passage may give it too much weight and risk skewing the argument. That is a risk that I expressly guard against. On p29 I note that complementarians may think I am placing more weight on 1 Cor 7 than it can properly bear. In response, I explain the nature of my reasoning:
‘I will therefore be cautious in how I use 1 Corinthians 7 in support of understanding other passages. However, we will see that when those texts are carefully read they are fully consistent with what we have seen in 1 Corinthians 7.’”
In other words, I do not use my reading of 1 Cor 7 to control the interpretation of any other passage. That means it makes no difference to my reasoning whether I start with 1 Cor 7 or whether I start somewhere else – the reasoning remains the same.
I think herein is the heart of some of the problems with Andrew’s book which I highlighted in my initial review. You see, it’s okay for Andrew to say that he will approach the text cautiously and that he won’t use 1 Corinthians 7 to control his interpretation of the other texts. However, this feels a little it too much like being simply asked to take something on trust rather than being offered reasoning. This relates to my twin concerns that there was an over confidence in our modern ability not to be shaped by cultural presumptions and an over emphasis on Andrew being uniquely qualified as a judge to dispassionately sift the evidence.
Furthermore, what Andrew doesn’t address is my point that order matters and that once you’ve opened an argument then whatever your view of your own abilities, those following your argument are being taken down a certain line of thought. That’s why authors, lawyers, politicians, pastors etc do think carefully about how they order their material.
Strawman 2
This is what Andrew believes to be my second strawman.
Dave says: “Whilst it is true that 1 Corinthians 7 is the most extensive passage in men and women in terms of marriage, this is different from saying that it provides the most extensive teaching on the specific questions of headship and submission.”
Indeed it is different, but his point does not relate to what I wrote. I have not said that 1 Cor 7 ‘provides the most extensive teaching on the specific questions of headship and submission’. What I did say was that this chapter is ‘by far the longest and most detailed piece of writing in the New Testament on the subject of men, women and marriage’.
I’m not sure that there is a difference between “extensive” and “…longest and most detailed.” However, I’m a little confused here. You see, I’ve not at any point suggested that Andrew has argued that 1 Corinthians 7 offers the most extensive teaching on headship and submission. What I have argued is that if 1 Corinthians 7 did provide the longest, most detailed, most extensive teaching on headship and submission, then given those are the key questions in the debate, that might be a good reason for starting with 1 Corinthians 7. Yet, Andrew has selected, not the most extensive passage on headship and submission but one of the longest on men and women. My point is simply that this doesn’t make the passage either “an” or “the” obvious place to start. The length and detail in 1 Corinthians is rather a red herring because the pertinent text within the section is the specific few verses on having authority over each other’s bodies.
I am a little intrigued by Andrew’s suggestion in the book, highlighted by him in his response that the book would show that 1 Corinthians 7 wasn’t inconsistent with the other passages. You see, I don’t think that the suggestion is (certainly not from this quarter) that 1 Corinthians 7 would be inconsistent with those other passages
Straw man no 3:
Andrew thirdly observes:
“Dave says: ‘the argument seems to be that Paul doesn’t mention the concept of headship here, therefore it cannot be that significant’. That is another imaginary argument; it is not one that I have raised.”
Now, looking back at the chapter again, I acknowledge that Andrew does not use the term “headship” or make that explicit statement. However, I would also observe that I say that it “seems to be…” In other words, I’m acknowledging a level of uncertainty in my comment here but at the same time attempting to summarise Andrew’s argument and to do so in language that will be recognisable. Again, this isn’t really the same as a “strawman”. It’s not an imaginary argument, I may have misinterpreted what Andrew has said but I’ve not just made it up.
So, it is worth looking again at why I suggest that it seems to be the argument and to do so it would be helpful to pick up on the language that Andrew uses. He says:
“When we look more closely at what Paul writes, we do not find a justification for using the marriage bed and joint prayers as a special exception. There is no trace in 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul means to state an exception to a general authority of the husband over the wife.”[1]
Further on, he observes that
“…prominent complementarians …. recognize that 1 Corinthians 7 3-5 is consistent with Paul’s wider teaching about Christian relationships )Rom 12:10; Gal 513; Phil 2:5) and that it is inconsistent with unilateral authority of the husband. Piper and Grudem even add. ‘The text us the main reason we prefer to use the term leadership for the man’s special responsibility rather than authority.”[2]
Now, as it happens, I’m not sure that generally speaking the mainstream of complementarian thinking does not presume the kind of unilateral authority of the husband but that perhaps depends on what we mean. If we mean that the husband is always the active decision maker then, in theory not. In practice, as I observed in my introduction to Marriage at Work, it can look like that when you consider Piper’s approving biographical comments about his father’s lead in the family.[3]
Rather, many complementarians will talk in terms either of specific spiritual leadership, so that there is a narrowness to the husband’s remit when it comes to authority. Then there is a tendency to talk in terms of “final authority.”
So, my dissertation included interviews with serving pastors at the time as appendices, two identifying as complementarians, one as an egalitarian. One complememntarian, Christopher Jenkins comments on conflict resolution.
“We provide “a radical Christian critique of the popular notions of conflict resolution.” “Self denial – not win-win. We are into ‘lose-lose’ where both parties are willing to lose. Paradoxically, both parties then win.”[4]
He went on to suggest that the husband should take the lead in encourage that lose-lose” to “win-win” culture. Wesley Aiken in his interview commented: on a question about mutual submission:
“There is a mutual submission, but there is also a ‘final’ submission (I have just thought of this phrase now). This is where one partner (the husband) has to make a decision which affects the general ‘direction/tone/nature/direction’ of family life.”[5]
What also becomes clear is that when complementarians talk about final authority and/or servant leadership that they are attempting to define the word kephale/head. They are talking in terms of their understanding of headship. Now, of course we need to bear in mind that later on, Andrew will discuss the meaning of kephale and question those interpretations (perhaps another good reason for not starting with 1 Corinthians 7 but rather going to Ephesians 5). However, given the context I don’t think that it is unreasonably to use the term “headship” given its popular understanding as short hand for final or even unilateral authority.
Clearing up the unclear
Andrew’s conclusion is that
“Dave’s review leaves unclear whether he believes I have departed from Scripture in getting the following from 1 Corinthians 7, as stated in my summary points (p29-30):”
I think this reflects a misunderstanding indicated right at the start where he says:
“I’m grateful for Dave’s engagement, but I need to say that he doesn’t accurately interact with what I wrote. Instead, he erects straw men and knocks them down. He does not address the points which I actually make.”
You see, that presumes that my intention at this stage both was and needed be to engage with each point Andrew makes in the chapter. However, I’d made it explicitly clear that my primary concern with that chapter was to do with methodology and structure. The scope of that specific article was not to evaluate each point raised. That is what can happen when ther eis a totalising of polarised positions so that we feel under pressure to go line by line through and challenge everything. As I indicated previously, there are things I am likely to agree with Andrew on 1 Corinthians 7, particularly because I agree with the concept of mutual submission.
What this means is that when I read his summary points[6] I think that cautiously I agree with him in so far as his point is that Paul’s take is Christocentric and eschatological and so lifting his readers’ eyes from their circumstances. I also agree in that he seems to be talking about mutual submission and yes, that means an “equal authority” in regards to this specific context. However, because what we mean by authority and how mutual submission relates to the question of headship really needs text work done on those other passages to make sure we understand how those things function.
In other words, before I answer whether I fully agree with his application of this specific example, I want to see what Paul has to say about the nature of the relationship more generally in order to understand how it is applied to the specific example.
Conclusion
Andrew thinks that I have set up some strawmen. I’ve explained above why I don’t think this is the case. It is possible that I’ve misunderstood him at points and it is also possible that I could have used different language. I’m not convinced that I have misunderstood him I also think that my choice of terminology and language was reasonable ad accurate. What do you think?
Whether or not the question is over “an” or “the” “obvious place to start”, my central point remains that I don’t think that 1 Corinthians 7 was the best/right place to start. I’m still not convinced that we have heard a justification for this starting point.
[1] Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ, 23.
[2] Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ,27.
[3] See David Williams, Marriage at Work (Marriage at Work), 9.
[4] Christopher Jenkins, quoted in David Williams, Marriage at work, 112.
[5] Wesley Aiken, quoted in David Willaims, Marriage at work, 119.
[6] Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ, 29-30
Faithroots 