The “Difference” Between “A and Not-A” | CBE International

You are here

The “Difference” Between “A and Not-A”

An Analysis of Alleged “Word Tricks” and Obfuscations


The author addresses “Egalitarian Claim 10:6,” that reads, “If female subordination is based on who a woman is (as female) rather than her ability or choice, then it is subordination in essence. Therefore the Complementarian position leads to the conclusion that women are lesser beings.”2 He then cites a paragraph from Rebecca Merrill Groothuis’ Good News For Women:



The author goes on to suggest that Groothuis states the complementarian position in a misleading way by using the words “equal” and “unequal” with different meanings. He argues that, if her sentence were reworded to represent the complementarian position fairly, it would read, “the idea that women are equal in value and honor and personhood but unequal in authority by virtue of their being women is contradictory and nonsensical.”5 He objects that this statement is not contradictory nor nonsensical because it does not violate the logical law of non-contradiction: “A and not A.” He then concludes that Groothuis’ usage of “equality” is “simply a word trick” that obfus-
cates the complementarian position and creates a false contra-diction. Moreover, the author presses his case that a woman’s subordination to man’s authority is not based on an “inferior” being but a “different” being.

In response, I will do two things. First, I will examine the key words used in the debate over the so-called “complementarian position” between hierarchicalists and egalitarians by using standard reference books such as a dictionary and thesaurus. I will also look at the supporting definitions of “manhood and womanhood” from the complementarian volume Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW)6 as well as the statement concerning female subordination from Groothuis’ essay in Discovering Biblical Equality (DBE)7 in order to represent the language as clearly as possible.8

Second, I will offer a rebuttal to the charges that Groothuis has used a “word trick” to obfuscate the complementarian position and show that the gender hierarchicalists are in reality the ones who have used word tricks and obfuscating language to conceal the incoherence of their view.

The So-Called “Complementarian Position”




3. Both are equivalent in:

a. value: worth, usefulness, and esteem in life

b. honor: respect, privilege,* reverence, admiration


c. importance: significance, meaningfulness, consequence, magnitude

d. personhood (as defined as human capacities from the imago dei9), including:

i. spirituality (capacity to relate with God and be gifted by God)10

ii. rationality (having reason and understanding, comprehension, logical judiciousness, intelligence, sagacity, capacity to learn)

iii. command of language (capacity to read, write, speak, communicate)

iv. agency (capacity to administer control in order to accomplish)

v. self-consciousness (awareness of one’s self as an object of observation by others)

vi. moral responsibility (accountability to ethical imperatives [God])

vii. political function (men and women are set in dominion over the earth)

viii. volition (will, choice, decision-making, capacity to choose)

ix. sexuality (capacity to relate sexually)

x. emotionality (capacity to feel emotions)11

xi. memory (capacity to absorb and retain information)


5. The capacities refer to elements (the powers of personality) in the human framework that enable the fulfillment of human function.12

6. The man’s function

a. one of primary authority

b. responsibility to lead,* provide for,† and protect‡ (duty, obligation)13belongs only to men rather than women (masculine)
*lead: guide, show the way, direct, command, manage

7. The woman’s function

a. to submit* joyfully and intelligently to man’s primary authority14
*submit: surrender, yield, accept, acquiesce, resign, defer

b. to affirm, receive, and nurture the strength and leadership* of men15
*leadership: management, guidance, control, headship, direction, supervision, regulation

Female Subordination and Male Headship16


2. Comprehensive (complete, full, all-inclusive, entire, total), including comprehensive in scope (range, space, opportunity, choice, latitude)


4. Unchanging (static, fixed, immutable)17

Analysis and Rebuttal

According to the complementarian position, a man’s role is one of primary authority. This unique preeminent position gives the privileges of rule and command to influence thought and behavior in the home and church exclusively to men, by virtue of their maleness.18 Therefore, man is ultimately responsible to guide the woman, family, and church in matters of decision-making. Hence, man is chiefly and principally responsible before God. The authors agree,










Either men have greater moral responsibility before God than women, or they do not. If they do, then men are greater in human personhood than women, and therefore women are unequal to men in being׃





He also says,


Though these duties are meaningful, significant, important, and vital to the health of a family, it is implied that women ought not to do these things (though they can) because doing them would go against the “root of our personhood.”25 But what root is he talking about? It is precisely the agency of the female, and it is by the very nature of her femaleness that she is deemed unfit for such vital and important tasks. Moreover, she must resign and positively declare such duties are more fit for a man in order for her to remain “properly feminine.” This is because the importance of these duties is fundamentally grounded in male personhood, something she is incapable of having.

But is it not reasonable to say, “Men and women have equality in importance with differences in importance”? Not if you are talking about male headship and female subordination. Man, by nature of his maleness, is deemed fit to lead, provide, and protect. Woman, by nature of her femaleness, is not seen as fit for such vital and consequential tasks (like leadership), but is reliant on man to carry them out. Moreover, without male headship, her femininity can never mature or become complete, seeing how there would be nothing to submit “joyfully” and “intelligently” to, nor “affirm,” “receive,” and “nurture.”

Mature womanhood is dependent on following male headship, while male headship can mature independently26 outside of solely ruling women (no matter how humble) as illustrated poignantly by the exclusivity of leadership in the church.27 As a complementarian author puts it,


The word “primary” signals a higher level of teaching, leading, and responsibility and therefore a higher importance. So, if we go back to our government analogy, the man not only has the decision-making status of a Supreme Court Justice, but also the status of a President or head of state—all of which is supposedly natural for, and therefore determined by, his gender! Who could equip and mobilize the saints if there were no male leaders? Certainly not women!


If it is said that greater or lesser authority implies a “different” importance and honor, and not a superior or inferior importance and honor, then the word “authority” is obfuscated and equivocated, rendering it void of meaning. Since we believe “authority” has meaning, it would be more accurate to say that women are equal in importance and honor but unequal in importance and honor. Therefore, the complementarian position is shown to be contradictory.

Having plucked three of the complementarians’ four equivalent human standards (personhood, honor, and importance), we conclude it only stands to reason that men are more valuable than women. Though it is true that the blood of a woman is equivalent in worth to that of a man, it cannot be argued that women are just as useful as men. True, women can do certain things that a man cannot (childbearing and nursing). But, if the conditions of male headship and female subordination are permanent, comprehensive, necessary, and universal, then it must be said that this view so stresses the “differences” that it minimizes the equality of men and women at best and obliterates it at worst.




  1. Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Sisters: Multnomah, 2004).
  2. Ibid., 441.
  3. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News For Women (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994), 55, italics original.
  4. Grudem, EFBT, 441, italics his.
  5. Ibid., 442.
  6. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991). All quotations from this book are taken from an online version available at:, accessed April 21, 2005.
  7. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, “‘Equal in Being, Unequal in Role’: Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination” in Discovering Biblical Equality, ed. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Ronald Pierce (Westmont, Ill., InterVarsity, 2004), 301-33.
  8. It should be noted that the definitions are not selected simply to fit the intended meaning of the words used in the complementarian proposition. However, the intended meaning has been noticed and not excluded. The including of other definitions is to show how tricky language can be.
  11. It is often said that women are more emotional than men. However, this does not mean women have a greater capacity for emotions, but less hindrance in expressing them. Simply put, women are not designed in such a way that they can be more or less happy (emotional) than men.
  12. The functional aspect of the imago dei is where God gives the responsibility of representing himself to humanity. The structural capacities of the human self are thus given for the fulfillment of this function.
  13. Grudem, EFBT, 44. According to John Piper, this protection is not just against mortal enemies, but also against “Satan and sin” (“A Vision of Biblical Complementarity,” in RBMW, 30-35).
  14. Grudem, EFBT, 43.
  15. Piper, “Vision of Biblical Complementarity,” 37.
  16. Groothuis, “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role,” 304, 316.
  17. A good word that describes all of these definitions is “universal.”
  18. As opposed to ability, knowledge, and experience.
  19. Piper and Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns,” in RBMW, 59.
  20. Piper, “Vision of Biblical Complementarity,” 44.
  22. See Piper, “Vision of Biblical Complementarity,” 25, 32.
  23. Ibid., 32.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Ibid., 25-26.
  26. Especially in the case of a celibate male.
  27. Which is not only over females, but also males.
  28. Piper, “Vision of Biblical Complementarity,” 44.


Join the Cause


Learn More