Confronting William G. Witt’s “Icons of Christ”

In his tome Icons of Christ, William G Witt compiles a great list of arguments against Christian priestesses and sets out to refute them all. Reviewing this book has recently become considerably easier, because Witt has declared what he believes is the most important part of his book. He did this because another reviewer for this website took him to task for a chapter of the book which Witt “regarded as the least significant chapter in the entire book.” Very inconvenient for that reviewer! I would not want to focus on a chapter of a book only to have the author declare it unimportant to his argument. So, it is a piece of good luck that Witt has singled out the following chapters as the most important: chapters 5 through 7 (on Protestants) and 11 through 14 (on Catholics).

I’ll proceed by first explaining the priestess question (PQ). Then I’ll just march through Professor Witt’s key chapters, examining them section by section. I’ll get through chapter 5 in this installment.

This project will of course make me look slightly crazy: this is a large amount of material to cover. I may only get through his chapters on Protestants. However, Witt covers C.S. Lewis in the section of the book on Catholics, and I would like to vindicate Lewis against his criticisms.

One more piece of business before I begin, regarding the term “priestess.” I will refer to the question as the “priestess question” and ordained women as “priestesses.” I do this because Professor Witt says it is in bad taste to do it. He asserts that Christians should respect the fact that ordained women do not want to be called priestesses.

[T]he term [priestess] is used disparagingly, with the conscious realization that the women to whom reference is being made would not use the term to describe themselves. (173)

Since advocates of women’s ordination do not believe that ordained women are “priestesses,” to argue against “priestesses” is a classic example of a “red herring” argument. (174)

However, it’s important that things be called what they are, especially if there are men who would censor the truth of the matter with an appeal to the sensibilities and mental framework of those in error. It’s a mistake to call a “homosexual marriage” a marriage, a woman a man, and a priestess a priest.

Even if I am eventually proven wrong, being provocative is a matter of conscience to me. Constantly paying heed to the mental sensitivities of others has only increased that sensitivity. This sensitivity is a plague on our age. By pretending that what isn’t is, we have made misguided people angrier and angrier at their inability to rewrite reality.

Why This Debate

For a variety of reasons—sociological, political, legal, religious, etc.—men today are less masculine than they should be. I like to put the problem in terms of citizenship, namely, a masculine man is a full citizen, but there is no genuine citizenship available to the vast majority of men today. Women prefer full citizens to second-class citizens, third-class citizens, subjects, or slaves. Since very few women have access to men who are not second-class or lower, they (reasonably) find it obnoxious when men put on the airs of men with genuine authority in the community. The distaste women feel at the sight of this boasting has not eradicated their ideal, i.e., women still want men with power in the community, great wealth, and so on. They don’t like men who demand respect, but they would like to have a respectable man.

I understand this is an assertion that can simply be denied. At this level of argument, no genuine compulsion is possible. All I can say is that men would do well to expect the respect they deserve, and to realize that not every man deserves the same amount of respect.

All sensible people turn their noses up at men who obnoxiously claim the rights and privileges enjoyed by their ancestors without at the same time possessing the authority and dignity of their ancestors. We are all sans-culottes today whether we like it or not. We must admit this without acquiescing—that’s my point. The need (and indeed the desire) for masculinity cannot be dispensed with just because it seems so far out of reach.

It is against this backdrop that the PQ really gained traction, i.e., only once the priestly class lost much of its own cultural and political authority in the West did it become separated from masculine authority.

The Need for Masculinity

Proponents of priestesses recognize that men should not demand respect they don’t deserve. What they don’t recognize is that what we need is a restoration of respectable men, not a general renunciation of masculinity. If an institution declares to the wider community (and indeed, to “the world”) that its men will be led by women, it will be no surprise that young men who don’t want to be ruled by women will look for meaning elsewhere. And it will be no surprise that young women who want these men will look where those young men are looking.

How to persuade Professor Witt and his readers of the need for masculinity? One way would be to prove that women are less suited to the work of a priest, because they lack masculinity. Another way would be to appeal to our common authority, the Bible.

Having Good Taste

Unless we appeal to an authority, the discussion of “who should be a priest” requires a distasteful discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of women.

Putting women forward as priests is a distasteful act because it requires unseemly discussion. I suspect that proponents of priestesses know this; they know why Christians have typically not had women priests, or nations typically not had women rulers, and also know that it’s in bad taste to have to say why. When a man sets out explicitly the vices or weaknesses of women that make them poor rulers and leaders, there is typically some suggestion that he is an insecure man. His lack of power and masculinity is always pointed to as a sign that he’s really just coping. If he is masculine, and especially if he has real wealth or power, he’s “punching down.” At this point, there is no way of demonstrating the question one way or the other.

I am willing to have this discussion, but only if someone makes me have it. I’ll not be the one to force the conversation to that level. What I can do here is show that there is a general preference, among men and women, for men in positions of authority. If there is a general preference, it is reasonable to assume there are good reasons behind it.

Consider the fact that in American elections, the “protected classes” tend to vote together, with the exception of women. Barack Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008. Hillary Clinton got something like 54% of the female vote. Obama, Bill Clinton, and Reagan all did better with women voters than Hillary did. In politics, women have never organized (or been corralled) into a voting bloc. Even single women, who do vote more reliably Democrat, have shown a general preference for Democratic men over women. In Virginia, in 2016, Hillary Clinton won 61 percent of unmarried women. In that same election, Governor Northam won 77 percent.^[1]

Consider also: why is it the case that it’s acceptable to candidly discuss the weaknesses of men? It’s because, as I say, both men and women prefer men in positions of authority. Those who are expected to be authoritative are rightfully subjected to criticism. Men are expected to be authoritative; women are not so expected.

Consider the question of affirmative action policies. White women are still beneficiaries of these policies to some degree (though it is declining). White men are not. If women were preferred, there would not need to be any artificial legal incentivization program. In the hierarchy of victimization, a woman of a protected class has more affirmative action points than a man of the same protected class.

Finally, consider what we all know to be true in the Christian denominations. Those pushing for priestesses and other progressive changes are in the minority and represent “the educated” classes of those denominations.

These four considerations are compelling signs that there is a general preference for priests over priestesses. There are many signs to this effect, and I will multiply them if need be. The upshot is: if there is a preference, then it is highly likely there is a reason for that preference. If there is a reason for that preference, it is sensible for churches to abide by the preference.

Having said what I wanted to say on the issue, let’s look at Professor Witt’s book. The goal is to get a clear idea of his position and why he believes it’s superior to the position held by men such as Hooker, Calvin, Augustine, and Aquinas. I begin in chapter 5, where Witt discusses Genesis. Discussing the Bible means discussing a common authority, which is much more tasteful.

Chapter 5, “Beginning with Genesis”

Witt believes that woman’s subordination to man is neither natural nor divinely ordained, but was caused by the original sin. He thinks Christians have the duty, or at least a right, to straighten this out.

He frames the chapter in the following terms:

Does Genesis teach that the subordination of women that was presupposed in the ancient Near East and in all historical cultures until the rise of the modern era is part of God’s intention for humanity in creation, or, rather, is such subordination a consequence of human sin? (53)

Witt gives a mini-commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis. He is trying to show that, contrary to what one might think, these chapters are about gender equality. I’m just going to show what he’s trying to do at each stage while pointing out why one needn’t be persuaded.

Genesis 1

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen. 1: 27)

Human beings are created in the image of God. Both “God” and “man” are, in Hebrew, masculine words. You might think masculinely gendered words indicate masculinity. But actually, according to Witt, the masculine gender in the Hebrew language has no correspondence to masculinity. “[T]he choice of genders for a noun is unpredictable.” I admit there are some headscratchers out there, but it’s funny that Professor Witt cannot fathom how the French might think of a table as feminine. (54) The general philological view is that, at least originally, there was a reason nouns were grouped into masculine and feminine. It’s silly to pretend the genders of words are “unpredictable.” Even the least philologically inclined could predict that the Hebrew word for God would be masculine. Professor Witt must deny the clear sense of the language to get to the equality he wants.

Genesis 2

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

Witt admits “This is an interesting difference.” (56) One is tempted to think this difference is everything.

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18)

Eve is made from Adam, and suited to him. While the NIV, ESV, KJV, RSV, and others all agree that she is Adam’s “helper,” Witt insists she is his “companion.” His argument is that God is sometimes called the same thing as Eve is called there— ’ezer—and therefore it cannot connote inferiority of any kind. Witt doesn’t cite any verse to this effect, so it is hard to address his claim. He cites instead 3 other books, so you would have to go hunting in those. It’s easier to google “’ezer,” where you will find that the word is used 21 times in the OT, almost uniformly in a military context: i.e., of God coming to help his nation Israel establish and defend itself. The word surely does not indicate “subordinate” in the way “servant” does (another word sometimes applied to God), but neither does it indicate “equality” in the sense of “the same.” Translating the word as companion would not fit the other verses. Indeed, the only reason “companion” seems to fit this verse is because Eve isn’t God or some other potentate coming to help Israel. She is a wife, a helpmeet, and wives make good companions. Two of the three people Witt cites retain the original translation of “helper”: Richard Hess and Carrie Miles continue to use “helper.” Witt follows Phyllis Trible, who translates ’ezer “companion.” We simply don’t have to adopt Witt’s hasty construction of this passage. And no sensible person reading the passage thinks of Eve militarily or as if she were an ancient king. She’s made for Adam because man should not be alone, not because Adam is beset militarily. (55-56)

(Elsewhere, Witt places emphasis on the fact that Eve is made because Adam is lonely. But it would be more to his point if Eve had been created because Adam needed help doing the work of the Eden.)

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:23)

You might think the designation “man and woman” (’is and ’issa) means that there is some difference between them. But no: “The woman is the same as the man, but a female version.” (56-57) They are both “humans,” but why insist that “woman is the same as the man”? Among human beings, there are men and women.

You might think Adam’s statement “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh” indicates some feeling of propriety over and for the woman created from him. A propriety which, when understood and practiced by civilized men, has always been appreciated. But no: “[Adam’s words] point to equality and companionship, not to hierarchy or subordination. The woman is one who is like the man because she is taken from his own body.” That is Witt’s entire interpretation of that passage. What is his reason behind this assertion? (57)

You might think Adam’s naming Eve—without a corresponding “Eve naming Adam”—represents some genuine difference between the two. It sure seems like first God, and then Adam, are giving definition to the being of, and marriage between, man and woman. But you would be wrong to infer this. Witt argues that, since Adam’s naming of Eve is not the same as his naming of the animals, there is no hierarchy involved: “the man does not ‘name’ the woman, but recognizes her as one like himself” (57). He sees no significance in this “recognition” going unidirectionally, or at least starting in Adam. However, you don’t have to think Adam’s naming of the animals is the same as his naming of Eve to draw “hierarchical conclusions” from the passage.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)

You might think Adam’s leaving his parents and clinging to his wife involves something uniquely done by him. It is not done by Eve, i.e., Eve does not initiate the marriage in the way Adam initiates it. The man leaves his family and moves towards the woman. So you might think that this difference—a difference among a sea of differences—could be meaningful, and might in some way inform how we think about men and women. But you would be wrong! Witt insists it only means “that woman was created to satisfy the man’s need for companionship” (57).

Lastly (for Genesis 2), you might think that being of “one flesh” could involve a hierarchy—but no! Everything that is of one flesh is equal and the same. “The unity of ‘one flesh’ points to both equality and completeness. There is no hint of hierarchy of any kind, let alone gender-hierarchy.” (58) But ask yourself, are you not “one flesh” with your arm? I am being flippant, and it is surely important that we realize the beauty of completeness through marriage. My flippancy comes in response to the doggedness with which Witt approaches these beautiful verses and twists them every which way to be about “equality between the sexes.” He twists them to the point where women become “corresponding companions” (57) rather than wives men seek after, cling to, and become one flesh with.

Genesis 3

Witt’s reading of Genesis 3 is similarly contorted. He actually calls his reading of Genesis 1 through 3 “straightforward”: “In conclusion, a straightforward reading of Genesis 1–3 does not teach that the subordination of men to women is part of God’s original intention in creation” (60). To the contrary: Witt does everything he can to read gender equality into the text.

He of course must figure out some way of dealing with the line from Genesis 3:16:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Why would God do this if there was no hierarchy? Why didn’t He raise Woman over Man?

This verse poses a special problem for Witt. The statement clearly is a result of man’s sin, and it is meant to be classed with the other results of man’s sin, namely, pains in childbirth and the cursed earth. There is nothing wrong or sinful with women feeling pains in childbirth. Women who get epidurals are not more moral than women who have natural childbirths. Likewise, there is nothing wrong or sinful about men working the earth. But for Witt, there is something wrong and sinful about the subordination of women. If a church were to say, “we are acknowledging the natural condition of man after the fall” what can Witt say to that? He says “well, you shouldn’t!” Are nations, churches, and men morally required to use painkillers in childbirth, heavy machinery in farming, and gender equality in political and religious life?

Now, where he has a stronger argument, is when discussing ideals. What is the ideal situation? It could be ideal to have painless childbirth, “sweatless” (or easy) labor, and equality between the sexes. But then, even if you have gender equality, you still have differences between the genders. The “complementarians” take this line. It’s not that interesting to me because I think, even before the original sin and corresponding advent of politics (rule), there were biological differences and therefore different roles. A division of labor wasn’t produced by sin; it was produced by sex. Adam was never going to be a mother, nor Eve a father.

In any event, no matter how the text is read, it cannot be the case that the rule of men is a sin. And there is good reason to think attempts to undo this rule may have some unpleasant consequences, politically, socially, and religiously. Witt’s position cannot accommodate this fact.

So much for Witt’s interpretation of Genesis 1 through 3. I think I have shown that a reader does not need to adopt his view, and would do well not to adopt it. I’ve also shown that it’s reasonable and not a sin for an institution to establish men alone in positions of authority. I understand that some institutions might fail to do this reasonable thing, or might want to try new things to stop their decline, but an institution that can keep men in authority cannot be blamed for doing so.

The Complementarian

In this section, Witt is attacking an author I don’t care to defend. I have not read Wayne Grudem. I don’t think you have to be a complementarian to oppose priestesses. Me writing about Witt writing about Grudem seems like a waste of time.

Women in the Old Testament—Tikva Frymer-Kensky

In this last section, Witt reproduces the argument of two books: In the Wake of the Goddesses by Tikva Frymer-Kensky and The Redemption of Love by Carrie Miles.

He refers to Frymer-Kensky’s book to explain away the fact that

In the Bible, we see a situation in which women are indeed subordinate to men in the household. In contrast, some men in the Bible have power over some other men and women; women do not have such power. (66)

The Bible condones a division of labor and gender roles, and the prophets do not challenge it. Witt maintains that all of this is merely the result of the times. The socio-political situation of Israel (including its law?) is not of divine origin.

The Old Testament assumes the social structures that were common in the ancient Near East, but nowhere justifies them or considers them of divine origin. (67)

Witt must not believe the OT Law was from God. He’s compelled to deny the divinity of the OT Law because he wants to affix gender roles to “socioeconomic” circumstances.

The gender division of ancient Israel (as in other agricultural societies) originated in basic socioeconomic realities. The household was the basic unit of production, and men’s and women’s roles were determined by the biological reality that women bore and nursed children and men did not. (67)

If “gender roles” are the result of “socioeconomic realities” then those roles can and should change when those realities change. However, a proper understanding of the OT Law is that it was an ideal the Israelites were supposed to achieve. Witt thinks of it as a temporary misfortune that could (and should) change.

After he “establishes” the connection between the OT Law and socioeconomic realities, he then moves to discuss the second book by Carrie Miles. This section is the most impressive section of the chapter because Witt shows (I think) what really motivates him.

Women in the Old Testament—Carrie Miles

I imagine Witt has been pained by what he believes is boastful and obnoxious Christianity. It’s “out of touch,” for preachers who don’t realize the difficulties facing the younger generation, to demand the same social and political habits. Christians pretending men still deserve the respect they once did are alienating younger people, who see clearly that American men today don’t deserve the treatment they deserved a hundred years ago. The typical American man today is more powerless than men were a hundred years ago. Likewise, telling young men they have to marry their lackluster girlfriend, even when such a marriage would mean a lifelong sentence to mind-numbing work, is simply going to drive thoughtful young men away from church. I could be wrong, but I suspect Witt is sensitive to these sorts of facts. I put the facts in my own words, but they are aligned with his complaint that “When virginity no longer has an economic value, freedom of sexual expression becomes almost a cultural requirement” (70). Witt thinks it’s a sad state of affairs that this is the case.

In other words, what he is trying to do is save Christianity. He is trying to square the changing times with Biblical morality, and I believe he and others rightly see this as the task of a sincere Christian man. “How should the church respond to the new situation that has resulted from new economic circumstances” (70)?

But his error is great; Witt and people like him don’t interpret things correctly, and this has led to people like me suspecting Witt of simply disliking Christianity. Why? In this section, Witt, following these two authors, has adopted a Marxist reading of biblical morality, whereby the economic circumstances are the true causes of public (im)morality: virginity is honored when it is economically valuable, and when it isn’t economically valuable it isn’t honored. Virgins who protected their virginity in the past are not morally superior to women sleeping around today because, in the past, those women and their families had economic incentives to protect virginity that don’t exist today. Witt extends this argument to morality generally: no age of men is better than any other; you might think one age is more virtuous than another, but that’s just because you have a moral outlook that was developed in a bygone age, used to justify the economic division of labor necessary in that time.

People in preindustrial societies were not more ‘moral’ than our contemporaries. The moral institutions of a previous era were only loosely based on ‘Christian principles.’” (70)

Witt is sensitive to how socioeconomic factors make people worse, i.e., lead to sexual promiscuity among other things. He notes that “it’s not their fault that they are worse.” But then goes so far as to deny that they are worse! He thinks it’s deplorable that women treat their virginity cheaply, but doesn’t think the women who do treat it cheaply are morally inferior to the women who don’t. He should and could improve on this point: he should admit that socioeconomic factors can incline whole generations to vicious habits, even though it’s not their “fault.”

Since Witt doesn’t admit this, his ideal is the Marxist ideal, namely, he seeks the destruction of the division of labor. Older, “preindustrial,” economies are responsible for the division of labor, of which “gender roles” are a species. Indeed, hierarchy as such is a result of socioeconomic factors. Hierarchy is never moral, it’s merely a result of necessity. Mankind can move beyond necessity. Equality, not hierarchy, is what is moral. Necessity gets in the way of equality. Witt wants a moral world. He wants socioeconomic factors that make this egalitarian world possible. In the meantime, he would like the church and Christians generally to recognize that socioeconomic factors have changed and that the moral valuations rooted in earlier times are no longer powerful, persuasive, or legitimate.

Witt is essentially trying to harmonize Christianity and Marxism.

I don’t claim to know his motives. And even if he consciously is trying to harmonize Christianity and Marxism, I suspect it’s because he feels compelled to do so by two facts I mentioned above: First, there really is a socio-political reason our marriages are failing and that men don’t get as much respect as they used to. Second, demanding that women respect men is tasteless in an age when men don’t deserve respect. But these two truths do not necessitate the destruction of the division of labor, with its “roles” and “inequalities.” Instead of abolishing roles that have in many instances become risible, we must seek to make those roles (the division of labor) a blessing to all.

Contrary to Witt, if he admitted what I say he needs to admit, a completely different possibility would open up for him, one which I doubt he’s considered.

Socioeconomic factors and political factors, play a role in the moral and religious development of a people. We live in a time where healthy marriages are harder to achieve for a majority (a majority!) of Americans. We live in a time of political decline, not an era of progress. Technological advances have occasioned political decline. The answer is not to reverse this: it cannot be reversed. The answer is to develop a new politics, but one faithful to Christianity. Christians recognize and celebrate Man and Woman. Christian morality is premised on a division of labor and “gender roles.” There must be a newly formed Christian hierarchy to match our newly deformed political situation.

Brief Conclusion

A division of labor without masculinity and the respect it inspires is an oligarchy. A division of labor without God and his representatives is an oligarchy. Today, we are living under an effeminate global oligarchy, which is based on a division of labor that no one respects. Witt and others believe the answer to oligarchy is the abolition of the division of labor altogether. But this means disliking Christianity and its priesthood. There is no priesthood without a division of labor. The priesthood sanctifies the division of labor. The priesthood is the pinnacle, the entire reason for a division of labor.

We can’t save Christianity by trying to join with Marxists. To the contrary, we must pursue a justified division of labor, whereby a great chain of Being links even the lowest among us to the divine telos of man.

Notes

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/virginia-politics/governor-exit-polls/?utm_term=.4f270c30d1c5 ↑