That… Which Matters Most

Grok Analyzes Garwood’s Tactics

·

Grok Analyzes Garwood’s Tactics

After publishing the previous article on head coverings refuting Garwood’s position, my wife asked me, to ask Grok the following question about Garwood’s article. Here is the question:

Pertaining to Garwood’s article, what kind of side stepping or smoke screens does he put up in order to confuse the reader?
Here is Grok’s reply:
Garwood’s article does not contain outright falsehoods or deliberate deception, but it does employ several rhetorical and structural tactics that function as sidesteps or “smoke screens.” These shift focus away from the strongest counter-arguments (grammatical flow, patristic consensus, and lack of explicit quotation markers) toward emotional framing, selective emphasis, and complexity that can leave readers feeling the traditional view has been dismissed without full engagement. Here are the main ones, drawn directly from the article’s text and structure:

1. Motive Attribution / Ad Hominem Framing (Cultural Backlash as the Real Driver)

Garwood repeatedly psychologizes pro-head-covering advocates rather than letting their exegetical case stand or fall on its own:

  • “To suggest that the passage is ‘obviously pro-head covering’ is dishonest. It may be obvious to you because your righteous anger at our culture overfloweth and you’re looking for a fight.”
  • He links the “recent uptick” to pastors “frustrated with feminism” who see coverings as “an increasingly exciting option for those wishing to establish patriarchalism in the home and church.”

This sidesteps the actual textual arguments traditional interpreters make (creation order, headship, v. 10 as symbol of authority/submission, nature/custom). By framing the opposing view as a culture-war overreaction, he emotionally primes readers to see the quotation theory as the “objective” exegetical rescue rather than one interpretive option among others. It confuses the issue by making disagreement feel like defensiveness instead of honest exegesis.

2. Vague Dismissal of Church History (“No Uniform Position”)

Garwood writes: “to suggest that ‘all of human history did this’ and ‘basically every theologian taught that a woman should cover her head’ is equally dishonest… there is no uniform position of adherence to head coverings throughout church history. An appeal to history just doesn’t work.”He acknowledges early church and Reformation support but never names or engages the dissenters he claims existed. This is a classic smoke screen: it neutralizes the weight of patristic evidence (Tertullian, Clement, etc., who read the passage as requiring coverings) with a broad-brush “not everyone agreed” without citations or analysis. Readers are left thinking history is inconclusive when the dominant trajectory is actually the opposite.

3. Practical Absurdity / Endless Practical QuestionsHe asks a barrage of rhetorical questions:

  • “Are wives to wear head coverings on the Lord’s Day… or should they wear them all the time? In the home? In the marketplace? What about daughters? … A doily? A shawl? … What color, shape, size, and material?”

Then cites James B. Jordan approvingly: “Since we don’t know what kinds of head coverings are in view, we cannot make a rule for church life today.”This diverts attention from the principle (a symbol of order/submission in worship) to modern logistics Paul never detailed. Traditional views rarely demand a specific modern garment; they see a simple head covering or hair style as sufficient in context. The tactic makes the command sound impossibly vague and burdensome, confusing readers into thinking the text itself must be non-prescriptive.

4. Imposed Chiasm + Long Unmarked Quotation as “Obvious” Solution

Garwood presents a detailed chiasm (adapted from Thomas P. Shoemaker) with v. 10 (“the woman ought to have authority over her head”) as the absolute center, then labels vv. 4–9 as the Corinthian view Paul is quoting. He concedes the quotation is long and unmarked but waves it away: Paul does this elsewhere (short slogans), chiasms allow non-linear thinking, and tensions “only make sense” this way.Critics note this is circular: the chiasm is imposed to create the quotation block, and the theory still requires assuming an unusually long, seamless Corinthian position without any “you say” signal (unlike 6:12 or 7:1). By calling the chiasm an “extremely useful interpretative tool” early on, he front-loads the structure as neutral fact rather than one possible lens, making the quotation theory feel like the elegant solution instead of a recent scholarly workaround.

5. Pastoral “Besieged Consciences” Appeal + Selective Eisegesis Warning

The stated goal is “to provide a healthy framework… that will hopefully alleviate besieged consciences.” This emotionally positions his view as merciful relief for guilt-ridden readers rather than a contested interpretation.Simultaneously, he warns against “anachronistic, etymological fallacy” and feminism-driven eisegesis—yet his own reading relies on modern scholars (Peppiatt-style quotation theory, Shoemaker’s chiasm, Bailey’s cultural studies) to resolve tensions that most historic interpreters did not see as contradictions. It creates a subtle double standard: their view is culturally reactive; his is pure exegesis.

Overall Effect

These tactics do not “prove” the article wrong, but they can confuse or disarm readers by:

  • Making the traditional reading feel motivated by culture-war anger rather than the text.
  • Sidestepping the clearest grammatical reading (the passage flows as Paul’s unified teaching) behind layers of structure, history dismissal, and practicality questions.
  • Framing the quotation theory as the only way to “resolve contradictions” without fully wrestling with why Paul would quote such a long, coherent block without signaling it.

The article is pastoral and readable, aimed at relieving anxiety in a post-feminist age. But to a skeptical eye, the smoke screens serve to make the minority quotation view (recently popularized) appear more exegetically compelling and historically neutral than it actually is. No widespread scholarly takedowns of this specific pieceexist (it’s niche), but the patterns mirror standard critiques of the underlying quotation/refutation approach.

Podcast also available on PocketCasts, SoundCloud, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, and RSS.

Leave a comment

Things that Matter

Hope you are enjoying these posts. I’ve been blogging since 2005, and it’s one of my favorite past times.

Latest episodes