Michael Horton’s Sola Media Promotes Egalitarianism

Sola Media was founded by Michael Horton and is home to various podcasts and content creators, most notably White Horse Inn, Core Christianity, and Theo Global. Sola Media brands itself as a “modern reformation” and has over 42K subscribers on YouTube. Horton has done work with The Gospel Coalition and has not been a fan of Reformation in regards to political thought.

Recently, Sola Media published a lecture by Grace Al-Zoughbi, a Christian from the Middle East who comes to teach on “the doctrine of the imago Dei and its implications for women’s dignity, identity, and participation within Middle Eastern contexts.” Al-Zoughbi is a professor at Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Lebanon. There are many question marks regarding the Church in the Middle East. One of the more ignored elements is that Zionist military adventurism has been disastrous for Christianity in the Middle East, often destroying Christian communities that survived since ancient times. Countries like Lebanon were somewhat successful until an influx of Palestinian “refugees” destabilized the country going into its Civil War. There is much financial interest in propping up testimonies of happenings in the third world as a means to finance missions work, some genuine, others embellished. One thing that is certain is that this woman is using the Imago Dei and testimony of women in the Middle East to promote egalitarian theology.

The doctrine of the Imago Dei, the image of God, is a foundational tenet in Christian theology and theological anthropology, affirming the intrinsic dignity, worth and equality of all human beings.

While she quotes Genesis 1:26-27, she disregards the order of creation, which demonstrates that male headship was intrinsic to the design. This would mean God created inequality into mankind because such was best for flourishing.

She then blames the church for marginalizing women before she transitions to say that they ought to have a role “in the life of the  church, in ministry, and in theological education.” The presence of women in seminaries correlates with their degradation, and as the SBC has learned, many of their female pastors were trained at SBC seminaries.

Her arguments start from the truism that both men and women are incorporated into the redemptive plan, but when she addresses 1 Corinthians 10, she actually quotes the NIV which deceitfully alters the verse “a woman ought to have authority over her own head” when it should read “the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.”

Here “image” and “glory” are not ontological hierarchies but moral and theological categories intended to affirm the divine intention behind male and fe female distinctions. Paul’s concern, according to this reading, lies in upholding sexual differentiation as a boundary against effeminacy and perceived rejection of creation order particularly in Greco Roman contexts that associated her style with sexual identity.

The problem with those who claim Paul is redressing a particular cultural context is that the context is unstated, making it an argument from absence. Moreover, the Greco-Roman religious practices often incorporated priestesses, female oracles, and vestal virgins, so the prohibition of women in ministry is a stark contrast to the ancient culture. The arguments against head coverings are all modern, which is why she proceeds to cite modern theologians, several of whom being women, to nuance a text which was sparsely contested until the modern era. Head coverings being prescriptive is the historic position of the Church across all sects because it is rooted in an ontological hierarchy.

Going back to Genesis, she states:

Nowhere does the text introduce any gender-based differentiation in  authority, capacity, or dignity. As beers of the divine image, they stand on equal footing.  This reading is of great theological significance, especially when considering contrasting interpretations of the fall. If one presupposes an ontological inferiority of the woman, whether in character or intellect, her transgression is then viewed as confirmation of such inferiority and male authority as a necessary corrective. This has historically shaped interpretations by church fathers and even modern commentators, many of whom have asserted that female susceptibility or gullibility renders women unfit for leadership. 

The rejection of Adam’s headship at creation then calls into question why God condemned in Genesis 3:17 begins with, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife.” Adam is assigned the greater share of blame in the Fall because of his authority. If Adam was not head over Eve, then the analogy of marriage to Christ and the Church makes the Church equal to Christ. This is the absurd yet logical conclusion to egalitarian theology. Just as Christ is the Head of the Church, so too is the Husband the head in the marriage. The New Testament very clearly articulates male headship in marriage, comparing the Husband’s role to that of Christ over the Church. With authority comes responsibility.

Al-Zoughbi then argues that these traditional views “reflect Aristotelian rather than biblical anthropology,” citing Hellenistic views that women were “deformed males.” It should be noted that the Jews in the First Century were very Hellenized with St. Paul being well versed in the Greeks, even affirmatively citing them (Titus 1:12). St. Peter was more direct in his epistles that leadership is a masculine quality and submission a feminine one. While the excess of Hellenistic thought led to various heresies, like Gnosticism and Marcionism, the logic of the Greeks was instrumental in articulating the Trinity as a doctrine. Without the Greeks, the ontological categories of Person, Nature, and Will would have lacked substantive definitions, and the Church would have been subject to greater anti-trinitarian subversions.

Despite this, historical church structures influenced by interpretations from theologians like Augustine and Aquinas have often marginalized women’s roles. I would argue that their interpretation of this point contradicts what the scripture states. A faithful theology of the Imago Dei calls for the inclusion of women in the church’s mission.

Augustine and Aquinas lived eight centuries apart, yet she is contending that God allowed the Church to get things wrong for such a prolonged period of time. It is also a complete mischaracterization as Augustine lauds his mother Monica in Confessions. Any such interpretation so long held by the Church should not be negligently discarded. The Reformers appealed to Tradition to suggest that Rome had departed. They did not despise Tradition out of hubris.

She does the standard argument that Priscilla and Phoebe were pastors in the First Century Church before transitioning to the situation of the church in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA).

In many churches across the MENA, women are present, faithful, and spiritually mature. They teach, lead prayer gatherings, offer hospitality, and bear the cost of discipleship. Often in communities where faith comes at great risk. In a small house church in North Africa for example, a woman leads secret gatherings of believers each week. While her name remains unknown to the wider church, she offers pastoral care, organizes worship, and mentors new believers, all while living under constant threat of exposure. And yet these same women are frequently excluded from formal leadership, theological education, or visible roles in worship.

Of the Christianity in the Middle East and Northern Africa, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox each account for 43% of the population with protestants accounting for only 13%, so she is referring to a minority of the Christian minority which practice the egalitarian vision she espouses.

She then discusses the practice of veiling (wearing the hijab) being a sociopolitical enforcement measure of patriarchy in the Muslim world. Al-Zoughbi’s argument boils down to the practice of veiling being against the Imago Dei, irrespective of the fact that Orthodox and Catholics in the MENA have always practiced veiling.

For many Muslim women, it confirms religious credibility and authority within a patriarchal framework. Louise Simone notes that Muslim women frequently derive honor through fulfilling socially prescribed roles of daughter, wife, mother, within patriarchal communities, highlighting honor’s relational and contingent nature. In contrast, Christian theological anthropology locates a woman’s glory and her intrinsic dignity as God’s image bearer independent of social role or approval.

Her arguments often conflate having an ordained role in the Church with having dignity and can be simplified down to the notion that if a woman is not in leadership, then her Imago Dei is being denied. This is a dishonest application of the Imago Dei. The Image of God does not nullify social duties, especially those intrinsic to childrearing since “Be fruitful and multiply” was commanded by God at Creation.

Women have the most important role in society: bearing new life. All roles that men have revolve around this prime directive. Across all sects, the Church has long taught that procreation is a duty of marriage. For a married couple to reject this duty is to commit sin. The Westminster Larger Catechism calls the “undue delay of marriage” a violation of the 7^th Commandment. Truly the deferment of marriage in America, led by women, is sinful and the social degradation this has caused proves that the Tradition is correct. The Imago Dei does not abrogate moral duties nor eliminate consequences for sins, whether social or criminal.

Conclusion

Despite claiming to be complementarian, Michael Horton’s Sola Media platformed Grace Al-Zoughbi’s argument in favor of female leadership in the church. Her arguments are neither good nor compelling but appeals to the Christian’s desire for missions as the basis for her subversion. All her arguments are modern. She appeals to modern theologians and philosophers to state her case rather than historical thought, which would doubtless disagree. She conflates women’s inclusion in Redemption with the need for them to have authority in the Church. Really, the arguments in favor of women’s ordination boil down to the words of the Serpent, “Yea, hath God said.” The Imago Dei does not justify violations of God’s commandments, nor does it serve as some theological trump card in the absence of Scriptural evidence. 

Shame on men like Michael Horton for allowing a woman to teach and promote heresy in the Church.