The most common understanding of both Complementarianism and Egalitarianism goes something like this:
Complementarians: Do not let women be pastors over men.
Egalitarians: Do let women be pastors over men.
or…
Complementarians: The husband is the leader of the family.
Egalitarians: The husband and wife co-lead the family, with no priority.
or…
Complementarians: Wives submit to your husbands.
Egalitarians: Husbands and wives are to practice mutual submission.
While I think that these are characteristics of both groups, they are not foundational characteristics that define each group. In other words, I don’t think that they are helpful in defining what it means to be a complementarian or egalitarian and they serve to cause a great deal of misunderstanding that leads to emotional bias that is very difficult to overcome once set.
In fact, I am going to say something very radical here and then explain. Here it goes:
It is possible to be a complementarian and believe that a women can serve in the position of head pastor over men.
Did you get that? Reread it. Reread it again…
Complementarianism is not first defined by it view of the roles of men and women in the church, family, or society.
Here is what Complementarianism is:
Complementarianism is the belief that men and women have God given differences that are essential to their person. Men and women are ontologically (in their essential nature) equal, but often, functionally, take subordinate roles (like the Trinity). These differences complete or “complement” each other. Due to these differences, there will be some things that women are predisposed and purposed to do more than men. As well, there will be some things that men are predisposed and purposed to do more than women. Therefore, there are ideal roles for both men and women that should be celebrated, exemplified, typified, and promoted in the church, family, and society. To deny these differences is to deny the design of God and thwart his purpose.
Here is what Egalitarianism is:
The belief that God has created men and women equal in all things. Men and women are ontologically and functionally equal. The way the sexes function in the church, society, and the family is determined by individual giftedness, not role distinctions according to the sexes. Therefore, each person should be judged individually when being placed in a particular position. We should exemplify this reality by overcoming the stereotypical placement that has traditionally been a part of societies in human history, thereby giving freedom to individuals to follow the path that God has uniquely created them for, whatever that may be. In doing so, we should no longer educate or indoctrinate according to any of the former stereotypes, including those of basic masculinity and femininity.
These, in my opinion, are the foundational tenants of each position without giving examples on how this plays out in the family, the church, or society.
The case I am making here is that in order to be a consistent egalitarian, one must deny virtually all differences that typify men as men and women as women. It is not just about getting women behind the pulpit or the concept of mutual submission in the family. It is much more complex and, in my estimation, more difficult to defend with sensibility.
I had a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who was an Egalitarian (he left because of this—I won’t mention his name). I loved this guy. Still do. Great teacher, thinker, and Christian. In fact, I had him come speak to our pastoral staff at Stonebriar to challenge us on why he became egalitarian and to defend his position. I wanted the staff to understand the “other side” from a very able defender. During his presentation, he painted himself into this very typical corner that I find most all egalitarians end up.
He was advocating a foundational principle of egalitarianism: there are no essential differences between men and women other than reproductive stuff. We were all quite taken aback. Every example we brought up, he shot down by giving a counter-example in the form of an exception. His basic argument turned on finding exceptions to everything. Whether it was that men were less emotional, more aggressive, more one tracked in their thinking, less tender, more competitive, unable to nurture as well as women, or even liked the color blue more, he brought up exceptions that he believed neutralized the “pattern”. Finally, I thought I had him. I said “What about physicality? Men are stronger than women.” He would have none of that. He then brought up examples of German women who were stronger than men! We could not stump the guy!
The problem is that in order to defend egalitarianism consistently, he had to deny all of the common sense distinctions that people have made about men and women since the dawn of time. I won’t get into the science or psychology of this issue as there are many very good resources that do this. To me, it is rather bizarre that one would actually be inclined to produce evidence to prove that men and women are different!
I am of the opinion that many egalitarians would have been appalled by Peter who said that women are the weaker of the sexes (1 Pet. 3:7) siting every exception to this rule and bemoaning this stereotype until Peter cried “uncle.”
Complementarianism says that men and women are different by design. We are different and God did it. It is that simple.
However, most people would not be willing to go as far as my former professor. They realize that sustaining a proposition that men and women have no essential differences is a battle that cannot really be sustained in real life (only theoretical ideology). Men and women are different. Even most egalitarians that I know would give me this. Hear this again. Most egalitarians that I know would admit, when push comes to shove, that there are some essential differences between men and women. Most would even say that there are essential differences that go beyond reproduction and physicality. But I would argue that these people are not really egalitarians, at least in the way I have defined it. They would be complementarians because they would have given up what I believe to be a central driving tenant of egalitarianism and embraced the central tenant of complementarianism: men and women are different by design and their differences complement each other.
Now, having said this, I believe that it is theoretically possible to be a complementarian and yet not take a traditional complementarian stand on the issue of women in ministry. In other words, someone could believe that men and women are different by design yet not think that these differences have any bearing on women in leadership in the church. They may be convinced that the Bible does not really teach that women should not teach men, and yet be complementarian in other issues and, broadly, in their theology of the sexes.
I am interested and committed to complementarianism for more than just the women in ministry issue. This is just one application. But (and here is where I get in trouble with fellow complementarians), I don’t think that it is the most important issue in this debate. Neither do I think that it is the most “damaging” issue.
You see, when people are truly committed and consistent egalitarians, they have to defend their denial of essential differences. In doing so, they will advocate a education system in the home, church, and society which neutralizes any assumption of differences between the sexes. In doing so, men will not be trained to be “men” since there is really no such thing. Women will not be encouraged to be “women” since there is no such thing. The assumption of differences becomes a way to oppress society and marginalize, in their estimation, one sex for the benefit of the other. Once we neutralize these differences, we will have neutered society and the family due to a denial of God’s design in favor of some misguided attempt to promote a form of equality that is neither possible nor beneficial to either sex.
We will have troubled men and women groping to find their way and feeling pressured to repress their instincts and giftedness. We will no longer be able to train up men and women in the “way” they should go since there is no “way” they should go. Women can act masculine and men can be feminine. Men can retreat in the face of responsibility because, in truth, they don’t have any “responsibility” other than the one that they choose. This is to say nothing of the implications this has on the issues of homosexuality and gay marriage.
But in a complementarian worldview (even one that allows women to teach men in the church), men are taught to be men and women are taught to be women. They both have defining characteristics. Masculinity and femininity find their place and are exemplified and celebrated. Men protect women from physical danger and take their positions of leadership seriously, without trepidation or fear that they will be seen as power mongers. And women support this. Women take up their positions of nurturing and supporting the emotional well-being of the world. And men support it. No role distinction is seen as inferior because in a complementarian worldview both are seen as essential and of equal importance. Only in complementarianism do we not define the rule by the exceptions and bow to the least common denominator. Only in the complementarian worldview, in my opinion, can freedom to be who we are supposed to be find meaning.
The true spirit of complementarianism is that God has intentionally created men and women with differences and we are to celebrate this in every way. The true spirit of complementarianism is never domineering (that is a sinful corruption). The true spirit of complementarianism provides no shame only freedom. The true spirit of complementarianism speaks to God in appreciation.
When we attempt to neuter this design, we have lost much more than authority in the pulpit.
Complementarians, while I believe that the Bible teaches the ideal that women should not have authority over men in the church, let us promote the true spirit of complementarianism then simply defending its particular applications.
637 replies to "What Complementarianism is Really all About"
“Church leadership should never be thought of as a promotion but as a demotion. It is servitude, not management. Too much of the issue of egalitarianism and women in ministry seems to treat ministry as a promotion instead of a demotion.”
Tony,
I couldn’t agree more!
40. Kay on 18 Feb 2010 at 10:17 am #
“If we look at 1 Timothy 2 Paul mentions one of the reasons for his rule is that Adam was formed first, then Eve. God makes a man, then a woman to complement him. The roles are primary.”
bethyada,
Genesis 1:27-28 says this: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Also, as c michael has acknowleged, Adam’s “rule over” is part to the curse, not part of the design.
Kay:
It seems that for the sake of his argument, the author of 1 Tim 2 is strictly referencing the Genesis 2-3 creation and fall accounts, and seems to be ignoring the Genesis 1 creation account, as well as any implications raised by the joint creation and joint rulership statements there.
It would be interesting to ask the author of 1 Timothy: “But what about Genesis 1:26-30?” (Especially since 1:29 suggests that Eve was also given the instructions about what they may eat, contrary to some who suggest that only Adam was told these things by God, and he then told them to Eve, who went on to “add to” what God had said in her conversation with the serpent because she herself had not directly heard it from God, and this second-hand hearing was part of the reason for her deception.)
Assuming that the man and woman in Genesis 1 are the same as the couple in Genesis 2-3, of course….
Is the type of leadership identified by Caliper welcomed by society and by the public and private sector?
2008 Pew Research Publications (“A Paradox in Public Attitudes Men or Women: Who’s the Better Leader?”) made the following observations about women leaders:
“Americans believe women have the right stuff to be political leaders. When it comes to honesty, intelligence and a handful of other character traits they value highly in leaders, the public rates women superior to men, according to a new nationwide Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends survey.” Paradoxically, however, “Nevertheless, a mere 6% of respondents in this survey of 2,250 adults say that, overall, women make better political leaders than men.”
“In the survey, the public cites gender discrimination, resistance to change, and a self-serving “old boys club” as reasons for the relative scarcity of women at the top. In somewhat smaller numbers, respondents also say that women’s family responsibilities and their shortage of experience hold them back from the upper ranks of politics and business.
What the public does not say is that women inherently lack what it takes to be leaders. To the contrary, on seven of eight leadership traits measured in this survey, the public rates women either better than or equal to men.
For example, half of all adults say women are more honest than men, while just one-in-five say men are more honest (the rest say they don’t know or volunteer the opinion that there’s no difference between the sexes on this trait). And honesty, according to respondents, is the most important to leadership of any of the traits measured in the survey.
The next most important leadership trait, in the public’s view, is intelligence. Here again, women outperform men: 38% of respondents say women are smarter than men, while just 14% say men are smarter, and the remainder say there’s no difference between the sexes.
Further results from the Pew survey:
Men and women tie on two of the next three traits on the public’s ranking of leadership qualities measured in this survey — hard work and ambition. Men prevail over women on decisiveness (their lone “victory” in the battery of eight traits), with 44% of respondents saying that men are more decisive and 33% saying women are.”
Is this type of leadership needed in the world?
Dr. Musimbi Kanyoro, the World YWCA Secretary General, says attitudes toward leadership are changing, and what women offer is essential:
“Domination as a leadership style is becoming less and less popular. There is a new growing appreciation of…those traits that women use to keep families together and to organize volunteers to unite and make change in the shared life of communities. These newly admired leadership qualities of shared leadership; nurturance and doing good for others are today not only sought after but also indeed needed to make a difference in the world….A feminine way of leading includes helping the world to understand and be principled about values that really matter.”
And so where did the American archetypal myth about leadership and the allegedly “essential” qualities of leadership come from? Why was it culturally assumed until recently that men were naturally better leaders? Is this a Biblical or pagan archetypal script? Pagan.
T. William Altermatt, Ph.D. conducted research and wrote a paper titled, “The Chivalry Script and Stereotypes about Women”
He writes: “In my research, I examine a cultural script that I have labeled “chivalry,” characterized by themes of men protecting and providing for women. Chivalry as a cultural phenomenon is unusual in that it is possible to pinpoint its origins with considerable accuracy. In the 11th century, the medieval knights who had once protected Europe against Viking invasion jeopardized the social order through continuous warfare among themselves. In an effort to…
Kay and Sue,
Since you haven’t answered my question, let me just make this observation. I see no evidence that the curse put on man has been lifted for a Christin male. He still has to work hard to make a living and if he is a farmer, the ground doesn’t automatically produce any better for him then the ground of his unbeliving neighbor does! So why do you assume that the curse given to women has automatically been lifted? And for that matter, Christian women still experience great pain in childbirth do they not? If that part of the curse hasn’t been lifted, why do you assume the other aspects of it have?
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that part of your argument holds up at all.
[continuation of Altermatt’s research} “In an effort to control the knights, the Roman Catholic Church reconstructed the knight�s role to include the protection of women, the weak, and the oppressed. During the Crusades, the role of knight (who literally is chivalry, a word derived from the same root as cavalry) was transformed from brutal mercenary into, in the words of Pope Urban II, “the true soldiery of Christ.” Over the centuries, the military and equestrian aspects of chivalry faded and gave way to a script describing gallantry, bravery, and deference to women. Chivalry�s survival from the 11th to the 20th century can be seen in its employment as an explanation for sex differences in aggression (Eagly & Crowley, 1986), helping (Eagly & Steffen, 1986), and the sentences and conviction rates of criminal defendants (Steffensmeier & Kramer, 1982). Despite its invocation as a post-hoc explanation of sex differences, little research has been done to explore the chivalry script or to assess, quantitatively, its influence on behavior.
Chivalry: Discrimination or Respect?
The chivalry script leads men to behave toward women in a way that is different from the way they would treat other men � a pattern of behavior that fits the definition of discrimination. But does this discrimination have negative consequences for women? Perhaps chivalry is a gesture of respect that acknowledges the differences between men and women and affirms the positive traits associated with women. On the other hand, if chivalry is interpreted as assistance, then perhaps chivalry helps to perpetuate the stereotype that women are less competent and independent than men are.
Research that I have conducted indicates that the chivalry script is related to both of these beliefs, which I separate into two stereotypes about women, one negative and the other positive: . . .”
cherylu,
How much of the curse should we hold dear? Hmm… So, how much of the curse should we go against? Should men be allowed to work without sweat on their brow? Should men be allowed to use weed killer on crops? Should women be allowed pain medication during childbirth?
Kay,
I was not saying that we should “hold dear” any of it. What I am saying is that the basic realities of the curse are still there–God hasn’t automatically changed any of those facts of life for Christians since Jesus death and resurrection. So I don’t believe that you can say that He changed the part of the curse that you are referring to either. They are all basic realities that have to be dealt with on a daily basis by all of us in this life. Unless I understood you wrongly, you seemed to be saying that Jesus died to remove the curse at the present time so what CMP said no longer had any application.
“So nature and giftedness are unrelated. And women are gifted for subordination but are not by nature subordinate. Just trying to understand.”
Sue, I think that you are jumbling up nature, personhood, and personality all into one thing: nature. The woman is equal in nature to the man (i.e., they are both humans). The woman is not the same in her personhood to the man, which stems both from her nature and her gender. The woman’s personality is based on beliefs, education, personal gifting, etc.
I would argue that mental, spiritual abilities stem from her human nature, her personhood is expressed in her role, and her personality is to be used to express both. If she uses her personality (e.g. her personal gifting) to express the man’s role (and it will be one or the other, as I think is evident within our culture) then she loses her distinct personhood. This is why I don’t like egalitarianism. It destroys the woman, as a woman, and replaces her with a man.
[continued] “Research that I have conducted indicates that the chivalry script is related to both of these beliefs, which I separate into two stereotypes about women, one negative and the other positive: the belief that women are less agentic (less able to effectively achieve goals and wield authority) than men; and the belief that women are more “virtuous” (morally responsible) than men. The negative stereotype might explain why chivalrous behavior is required: men should take care of women because women are not able to take care of themselves. The positive stereotype might explain why chivalrous behavior is deserved: men should take care of women because women are angelic creatures who deserve to be put on a pedestal.
. . . questions: 1) do chivalrous beliefs co-occur with these two stereotypical beliefs, 2) do chivalrous individuals discriminate in favor of women who conform to these stereotypes, and . . .
Conclusions:
1. chivalrous beliefs do appear to co-occur with the four stereotypical beliefs.
2. This question . . . considers the possibility that . . . stereotypes . . . not only describe the way that women are but that also prescribe the way that women should be. . . . Violation of prescriptive stereotypes is likely to result in negative evaluations and a loss of the privileged status that chivalrous men afford to women. three studies provide evidence that the chivalry script is not for all women, but only for women who conform to expectations of high virtue and low agency. This finding is meaningful because it provides additional support for the hypothesis that chivalry is related to these two stereotypes about women and because it suggests that chivalry is not quite as “nice” as it is often made ouout to be. Chivalry is not indiscriminate politeness; rather, it is shown only to women who are “virtuous” enougenough to receive it and who do not exceed expectations for female agency.”
“It seems that for the sake of his argument, the author of 1 Tim 2 is strictly referencing the Genesis 2-3 creation and fall accounts, and seems to be ignoring the Genesis 1 creation account, as well as any implications raised by the joint creation and joint rulership statements there.”
Kay,
Why would Paul (I take it you don’t believe in Pauline authorship) use Gen 1, which has to do with the relationship of the man and woman to creation when Gen 2-3 has to do with the relationship of the man and woman to one another? The latter is his subject, not the former.
It’s good to know that the curse is reversed and we no longer have to work with stress and women no longer have pain in childbirth. The best is that no one has to die anymore. I wish it were true. BTW, I don’t think this is part of the curse, but a provision. That’s the dispute over this passage. Is God saying that the woman will seek the man’s authority (or is that not part of the curse conveniently), but the man will retain his God-given authority over her in order to save her life? Or is it saying that she will desire his power, but he will tyrannically rule over her? The word mashal doesn’t bear the latter out.
Thus far in this thread the evidence establishes the following facts:
1. Women are at least as equally effective leaders as men
2. In many respects women are better leaders than men
3. Leadership is not a role that is more well suited to men than women
4. Leadership is not role that defines either men or women
5. The perspective that men are more natural leaders is a cultural phenomenom that can be traced to a specific historical period
6. Americans admire the traits that are associated with women leadership
The alleged facts in the lede, supported only by anecdotal evidence and dependence on pagan cultural stereotypes, have been disconfirmed.
I conclude that nothing of substance remains of the argument set out in the lede.
regards,
#John
I’m wondering what to do with the scripture in I Corinthians 11:11-12 in relation to this post:
“But in relationships among the Lord’s people women are not independent of men and men are not independent of women. For although the first woman came from man, all men have been born from women ever since, and everything comes from God”
Paul does not seem to be making women unequal to men here, but seems to be making a point that we are dependent upon each other. His illustration here of both sexes being subordinate to God does not seem to make a clear case for the complimentarian definition, presently used by the church at least, but instead seems to make more for the case of God being more equal in his views of the sexes than we humans are willing to concede.
I believe God’s word that women should not teach men in the church, but not for the reasons stated in this post. Practically speaking, a strictly literal application of it does present some difficult issues however. For instance, does women not teaching in the church apply to the children in Sunday School and Children’s Church, where we see women put in positions of authority over both males and females? If so, where is the cutoff?
In our women’s ministry we often had husbands attend our functions with their wives. Were we, and are women who presently have similar ministries supposed to say to the guys : ” Sorry you can’t come, because women aren’t allowed to teach men in the church.” ?
Are female missionaries in foreign fields then supposed to not hold church services for both men and women in their area?
The thing is most of the church already makes exceptions. You may have a male pastor in the sanctuary and all female teachers in another part of the church teaching children of both sexes. This goes on every Sunday in most churches , so I think to claim literal translation of this as a spiritual guideline, but then in fact practice something else is hypocritical.
John1453: “The alleged facts in the lede, supported only by anecdotal evidence and dependence on pagan cultural stereotypes, have been disconfirmed.”
When someone is completely sincere and serious, and yet I still laugh and chuckle, I hope the other person understands.
Kay,
My point was that “rule over” is negative and part of the curse. You really read that I want to keep women under it? Really?
If so, let me just say that I don’t want anyone acting sinfully according to the curse. In Christ, husbands should not “rule over” or “dominate” their wife. In Christ, the proper model of biblical servant-leadership should be restored.
“So why do you assume that the curse given to women has automatically been lifted? And for that matter, Christian women still experience great pain in childbirth do they not?”
cherylu,
I’m not assumming that. I just don’t believe it is a sin to act remedially regarding the curse. If that were the case, then all godly men should be trying hard to sweat while they work and no godly woman should take pain medication while giving birth, no man should use weed killer, etc…
“I’m not assumming that. I just don’t believe it is a sin to act remedially regarding the curse. If that were the case, then all godly men should be trying hard to sweat while they work and no godly woman should take pain medication while giving birth, no man should use weed killer, etc…”
This, of course, assumes that the ultimate fulfillment of the curse is physical rather than mental, emotional and spiritual. Of course, we should work against the curse in Christ. No question there. The real question is whether man’s headship is due to the curse. The question is then whether the NT indicates that it is, and what to make of the passages that seem to indicate otherwise.
John, not sure how persuasive some random paper is going to be here. Of couse women have skill and ambition.Ambition is not the determining factor. In fact, it could certianly simply be used to illustrate one of the primary complementarian point that as a part of the fall women “desire” will be fore her husband. Broadly speaking, this could be talking about the woman’s desire to be to “usurp” the role of the man. Therefore, there will be plenty of drive and ambition.
As a personal illustration, I have found the same. In various areas of my ministry, women were the ones who had the drive for leadership. They were the ones that were more available. They were the ones that did the word while I had to twist and break the arms of all the guys to do anything. I think we are existing in an increasingly neutered society.
When this would occur, I would have women leaders. It was my Deborah situation. Many have this. However, my point is, as I have said many times, this is not ideal according to a complementarian model. We are about RESTORING biblical principles.
CMP: “John, not sure how persuasive some random paper is going to be here.”
Maybe for some, but not for me.
Folks, their are only a certian number of characters available on each comment. This does not mean to post one post one after another to avoid the limits.
I try to keep up with many of these threads and posting one after another does not allow me to do so. I don’t mind you posting multiple times on one thread or responding to many people, but don’t just keep on posting over and over again about the same thing. Get it said in one post.
Read the rules.
Man has no “headship” that word is not found in the Bible. What IS found are metaphors, using head and body. What the metaphors mean can be discussed, but assuming it means “headship” without discussion is a FAIL.
Alex wrote on the earlier thread: “The translation I am using, though some claim it is biased, puts 1 Tim 2:12 this way:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.””
What you cannot tell from this translation is that there is no direct object for “teach” so it is unrestricted in scope.
Also, quiet/hesuchia is the attitude of a student in specifics and a believer generally, it is peacefullness. That is, hesuchia forms a inclusio which tightly ties together 1 Tim 2:11-12.
Also, the verb in 11 is imperative, but in English does not sound much like a command, while the verb in 12 is indicative, but in English translations often sounds like a command, where is is valid to translate it as “not now permitting” for a point in time.
These are some aspects which demionstrate that the translation you are using has made a lot of choices for you, and in the masculinist direction.
Deborah was selected by God and God does not make exceptions or mistakes.
And please, interact with the post.
I am noticing that those who do not agree with complementarianism are going in their default directions which do not engage what this post is about. It is interesting, but we are not going to be able to cover everything and the subject of the blog post determines the nuance of each conversation.
Therefore, what I would like egalitarians to focus on this this:
Do you believe that there are essential differences between men and women?
Do you believe we should nurture and celebrate these essential differences or remain neutral to them?
Do you believe that, many times, these essential differences will predispose one sex to be more qualified than another for certian jobs (and I am not saying “roles” here YET)?
Again folks, way to broad here. Deal with the main point of the post.
Kay,
Thanks for clarifying. I obviously misunderstood part of your comments above.
That still doesn’t change the basic facts though that the curse(s) are still there for men and women. And no amount of remedial action is going to remove that completely on this earth. It may make things a lot easier to deal with, but does not make God’s pronouncements go away.
And just a side note, some of those remedial actions you mentioned above can have some pretty far reaching and detrimental effects–weed spray isn’t a completely unharmful compound. It does get into the environment. And neither are pain killers and anesthetics completely harmless compounds. They can have very dangerous and sometimes very deadly side effects. Probably some times we don’t even know their effects on our bodies or the bodies of our child that is in the birth process. So, even our remedial efforts to get away from the effects of God’s pronouncements can cause us problems–the curse simply does not go away!
Neither do I believe it goes away in husband/wife relationships. That doesn’t at all mean that I believe a husband should abuse the wife and rule over her tyranically. Specially not a Christian husband. But I also think there may very well be an inherent danger in saying, as some seem to, that they are on completely the same footing in the marriage without the husband being the leader/head. To do so, it seems to me, creates it’s own set of problems–kind of like the effects of weed spray do as a remedy for that part of the curse.
Don, God does not accomidate to the culture?
Re: #43 CMP questions:
Do you believe that there are essential differences between men and women?
It depends upon what the meaning of the word “essential” is. I.e., are you referring to “essence” as in “ousia”? To be more specific, which definition of “essential” do you mean:
• absolutely necessary; vitally necessary; “essential tools and materials”; “funds essential to the completion of the project”; “an indispensable …
• basic and fundamental; “the essential feature”
• all-important(a): of the greatest importance; “the all-important subject of disarmament”; “crucial information”; “in chess cool nerves are of the essence”
• being or relating to or containing the essence of a plant etc; “essential oil”
• necessity: anything indispensable; “food and shelter are necessities of life”; “the essentials of the good life”; “allow farmers to buy their requirements under favorable conditions”; “a place where the requisites of water fuel and fodder can be obtained”
• substantive: defining rights and duties as opposed to giving the rules by which rights and duties are established; “substantive law”
Do you believe we should nurture and celebrate these essential differences or remain neutral to them?
Until you define what you mean by “essential,” I don’t think we can answer this question.
Do you believe that, many times, these essential differences will predispose one sex to be more qualified than another for certian jobs (and I am not saying “roles” here YET)?
Again, you first need to define/explain what you mean by “essential,” since per the dictionary definitions above, what YOU mean by “essential” may not be what WE think you are meaning. Hence, we may answer “Yes” when we in fact would really believe “No,” and vice-versa, because we may not mean the same thing that you mean by “essential.”
I meant #73 CMP questions.
It is essential to define the word “essential.”
😉
Eric, essential characteristic differences that would predispose one sex in the way that they think, act, and grow physically.
79. Truth Unites… and Divides on 18 Feb 2010 at 12:16 pm #
It is essential to define the word “essential.”
TUAD:
That would be bullets/definitions 1-3 for “essential,” as far as this thread is concerned. 🙂
I.e.:
• absolutely necessary; vitally necessary; “essential tools and materials”; “funds essential to the completion of the project”; “an indispensable …
• basic and fundamental; “the essential feature”
• all-important(a): of the greatest importance; “the all-important subject of disarmament”; “crucial information”; “in chess cool nerves are of the essence”
• being or relating to or containing the essence of a plant etc; “essential oil”
• necessity: anything indispensable; “food and shelter are necessities of life”; “the essentials of the good life”; “allow farmers to buy their requirements under favorable conditions”; “a place where the requisites of water fuel and fodder can be obtained”
• substantive: defining rights and duties as opposed to giving the rules by which rights and duties are established; “substantive law”
CMP:
But you defined “essential” with the phrase “essential characteristic differences.” That still does not clarify it sufficiently, because you are using “essential” to define what you mean by “essential.”
I’m not trying to be stubborn, but I think you have not yet defined what I consider to be an “essential” term in your argument/discussion.
And until you do that, I don’t think you can move on to discussing what are the “essential” differences between men and women, as well as what men and women “essentially” are or do or whatever.
Ok Eric. Maybe you will not be able to take part in that discussion. But it would probably be easy to just say “characteristics”?
. . . Females scored higher on verbal ability, compliance, nurturance, and empathy scales. Women tend to socialize more intimately with a few friends. Men are more apt to form larger groups. My purpose in this chapter is to demonstrate that these differences are not only real but likely have their roots in our unique biology as males and females. Furthermore, these differences are present at birth (and even before) and are amplified according to individual hormonal and genetic dictates. We are differently gifted as male and female not only in anatomy and physiology but also in behavior.”
However, there is a difference between bare biology and behaviour. In this regard it is important to note that social scientists use the terms “sex” and “gender” to distinguish the biological differences between males and females (sex) from the meanings people attach to those differences (gender). As Brian Howell (Ph.D.; now associate professor of anthropology at Wheaton College) writes, “To even speak of “gender and culture” is, in this sense, redundant because the category of gender presupposes a particular cultural context.”
The issue for egalitarians (I continue to use that term loosely and broadly) is not whether diffferences exist, but whether they ever have any theological or other significance at any time or in any circumstances (and if so, when, where and what). One might call this a teleological examination of sex differences—are there any ends to which the differences are directed, and if so then how are these ends served?
The lede’s redefinition of complementarian and egalitarian is not only novel, it is unwarranted and contrary to both historical usage and the usage in the current debates on this issue. As such the redefinition leads not to clarity and forward movement on the issue, but to confusion and lack of understanding. For example, Rebecca Merrill Groothius (a noted and respected evangelical egalitarian) writes, “Biblical…
Interesting. I was watching Dr. Oz today and the subject is transgenders.
Even those who believe that we can be born with the wrong sex have to borrow from complementarianism to do so.
Many of these people are saying, “Though I was born a female, I knew from an early age that I was a male.” No matter how you may feel about that (which I think it is very wrong), you have to see that these recognise that there are essential characteristic differences between male and female.
What does it mean to “feel” male. This gal is saying that she felt like a male from the age 4! (Give me back my worldview!)
Consistant Egalitarians, in my opinion, cannot say that they felt male or female. They just are who they are. No differences other than MAYBE a physical attraction to the other sex (but even that can be seen to have implication!).
I’ve greatly enjoyed watching the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada this past week.
I’m so glad that the Olympic organizers have historically and wisely recognized the *essential* differences between men and women in the various categories of sport.
Men’s skiing, Women’s skiing.
Men’s figure skating, Women’s figure skating.
Men’s speed skating, Women’s speed skating.
Men’s hockey, Women’s hockey.
Men’s …….., Women’s ……..
Etc….
Complementarian Olympics!
CMP: Do you believe that there are essential differences between men and women?
Don: Take away the word essential and I agree. I do not see what the word essential adds.
CMP: Do you believe we should nurture and celebrate these essential differences or remain neutral to them?
Don: Again, take away essential. We should celebrate the differences.
CMP: Do you believe that, many times, these essential differences will predispose one sex to be more qualified than another for certian jobs (and I am not saying “roles” here YET)?
Don: Again take away essential. As an example, some jobs require strength and as a group, men are strong than women, so I would expect MORE men to be able to do a job requiring strength. I know of very few tasks that require male or female genetalia, at least ones that believers should do other than mother and father.
CMP: God does not accomodate to the culture?
Don: Yes of course. God deals with individuals and peoples starting with where they are at, leading them into the Kingdom step by step as they let God do so. The culture of the OT and NT was patriarchical, this does not endorse patriarchy, it was dealing with the cultures where they were at, mitigating the worst abuses; repeat.
It destroys the woman, as a woman
I was destroyed as a human being. That’s enough.
Michael,
I think this post improves on the previous article in that you provide definitions of complementarianism and egalitarianism. Also, while I agree with the complementarianism argument, I wasn’t sure your statements in the last post illustrated the “why” of it completely persuasively.
I do think however that if one believes complementarianism to be the accurate biblical position, then one should see that as affecting specific roles of men and women, especially in the church, and that not to do so makes for an inconsistent complementarianism.
I found this to be a very good summary of your views, “The true spirit of complementarianism is that God has intentionally created men and women with differences and we are to celebrate this in every way. The true spirit of complementarianism is never domineering (that is a sinful corruption). The true spirit of complementarianism provides no shame only freedom. The true spirit of complementarianism speaks to God in appreciation.”
And you sound a needed alarm when you say, “When we attempt to neuter this design, we have lost much more than authority in the pulpit.” I think we live in a time when the idea that men and women can be anything other than “equals” and that all tasks/roles ought to be accomplished by whoever is best fitted for the task regardless of gender is the dominant thinking in the world system. But Christians aren’t to follow the way of the world, but the word of God. For example, John#1453 presents as “facts” scientific research/studies. He claims that your posts present merely “anecdotal evidence and pagan cultural stereotypes”. But you’ve presenting a view based on biblical truth, and if it is indeed truly biblical, then it is the standard by which Christians are to live. And this ought to carry much more weight with Christians than the conclusions of a few (or even a lot of) scientific studies. Supposing other studies can be presented that contradict the conclusions of the research John presents– then what? I am glad my convictions are being built on the solid rock of God’s Word, which is truth, not the shifting sand of man’s feeble thought. In any case, man’s research isn’t to be used to contradict and sit in judgment upon what God has spoken.
Does not God, who made man and woman, know best what we are and how we should best function in the church and in relation to one another? Perhaps the subordination thing is what really bothers many. But did not Jesus, though equal to God the Father, subordinate Himself to the Father as He lived life on Earth, not doing his will, but the Father’s?
Watching a multitude of doctors and phychologist citing studies and talking about the characteristic differences between males and females. On and on they are going with graphs of the brain and chemical evidences. It is funny because none of these are complementarian yet they have to borrow from a complementarian worldview.
Those of us who have children find the idea that there are no essential differences between men and women about like arguments that the earth is flat. You can bring your studies and statistics, but common sense is going to win the day.
P.S. I was born a male and have always felt male. I used to be a non-egal as that was what I was taught by teachers I respected, until I studied both sides and became egal.
There are some intersex people where the transition from default female bodyplan to male fails at some step. I find this very sad. That is, some XY people do not become fully male bodytype, those with androgen insensitivity syndrome become hyperfeminine, for example.
“Do you believe that there are essential differences between men and women?”
Absolutely. I love being a woman. Physically, most women are the weaker sex. But I think there is a tendency because of this to translate the male’s spiritual role in relation to the woman and the church into a position which suggests a boss-employee type model, which the Lord never intended.
I agree with someone here who said the servant-leadership model needs to be restored. This business of elevating leadership roles nowadays into a Godlike status is not complimentarism, but misplaced interpretation of scripture guidelines.
“Do you believe we should nurture and celebrate these essential differences or remain neutral to them?”
I do not see equality, as God intended it, to be about neutrailty at all especially not the kind of male ‘neutering’ you have spoken of, but rather what God is talking about when He says He is no respecter of persons. If anything, ‘neutering’ someone is taking away all they are meant to be. I think we would all have to admit that has been the more the case with women over the centuries than it has been with men. However, I think to expect women to serve in the church or the home because they are secondary to men, as some here seem to have interpreted the scriptures to mean is NOT true complementarism, but discrimination, pure and simple.
Like most women I know, I serve others out of sheer love of the Lord, and obey Him in any way He calls upon me to do so. That’s what I find essential.
Don, you seem to be a complementarian as you have done away with most of the essential egalitarian characteristics. At least we are on the same soil here.
Could it be that Deborah was an accomidation to a society which had neglected male leadership? That is the argument that we would make. We would not say that it was a “mistake” but an accomidation. In fact, the entire book of Judges emphasizes the weakness of men at the time as leaders. Bob Chisholm, an Old Testament scholar without any theological axe to grind has subtitled the book of Judges, “Where Have All the Men Gone”!
“To do so, it seems to me, creates it’s own set of problems–kind of like the effects of weed spray do as a remedy for that part of the curse.”
cherylu,
I do understand where you are coming from, but somehow I can’t see that having me stay fully conscious during my two c-sections and with no pain meds would be God’s will for me or any other woman…sorry I can’t go there.
CMP: “Don, you seem to be a complementarian as you have done away with most of the essential egalitarian characteristics. At least we are on the same soil here.”
Hearty laughter.
Good luck with that, CMP.
The “essential” question is (and, Don, I think you’re right about removing the word “essential” from CMP’s questions as not being “essential”):
Do these differences between men and women (and both comps and egals recognize that there are differences) support allowing only one of the sexes being in or exercising church positions or functions or offices or duties or roles or gifts other than those that for various reasons are best restricted to being filled/occupied/performed by one of the sexes in preference to the other (e.g., when baptism was nude, having female elders/deacons administer the baptisms to the females)?
I also think the discussion needs to differentiate between church structure and meetings and operation, and family/married life. While persons can be 100% comps or egals when it comes to both these things, I think it’s also possible for a person to be egal when it comes to church meetings and structures and authorities and offices and gifts, but comp when it comes to family/marriage relationships and structures, because the relationship between a husband and a wife, while it may be the same as the relationship between Christ and His Church as a whole, is not the same as the relationship between the members within the body of the church to each other. Men and women in Christ are brothers and sisters of each other, not husbands and wives or parents and children to each other.
Kay,
Don’t believe I would go there either! I am simply trying to say that no matter how hard we try, we can’t get away from the effects of the curse totally in this life. And that some of our best efforts to do so end up causing other problems. And that because of that we as Christians can’t just “zap” the curse and it’s effects away and try to make everything the same between men and women without causing other upsets to things in this world we live in.
Hmm,
Don actually brings up a question I wondered about awhile back while taking a class in college that got into genetics. How do we handle individuals who are not fully male or female due to genetic abnormalities (be it caused by androgen insensitivity, Klinefelter’s or other disorders???
Michael,
I would certainly say that there is no quick answer to that question. There is a right answer, but no quick way to deal with so many difficult issues involved.
However!!! I don’t want the thread to go in THIS direction for sure, unless it is directly and seriously pertinent to supporting or overturning or even nuancing my propositions.