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"
Mbaker, yes I understand. But asking where one stands with regard to submission to Christ does provide clarity to the issue of submission to earthly authorities. I won’t speak for Susan, but I think she was simply asking in order to understand better Sue’s opposition to submission and authority. Now it could be that the opposition is just confined to the topic of husbands having any authority. But, there could be a broader opposition to authority that transcends the topic at hand. If so, that would shed light on the position being espoused. I don’t think Susan is asking to accuse but asking to clarify.
TL and mbaker, I admit that I never assume that everyone present in a discussion at this site is a true child of God. I’m always aware that even some of the most biblically knowledgeable commenters are not Christians (and of course some will claim to be Christians who actually aren’t…by God’s own assessment…not mine). As Dan Wallace testifies, fewer than half of the scholars who are official members of the Society for Biblical Literature are true Christians (believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus etc.).
Maybe you girls aren’t listening, but I have already gotten that. I think it it is because she disagrees with popular opinion that she is being attacked personally. And it’s not because I agree or disagree with her. Sorry despite your protestations to the contrary, IMO, what you are espousing, on a personal basis, is not not aN equally Christian perspective on this paricular issue as whole, but a personal opinion/
Many a good discussion here has already been shut down because of this very thing, so let’s please get back to the point of the original ssue, While I sometimes disagree with CMP for shutting down some of these, posts, I wouldn’t disagree with him here at all. Either we either attack the issue or we attack the person. I’m for dealing with the issue, or shutting up.entirely Otherwise we all compromise.
“If one expresses a hostility towards submission and authority, it begs the question why that position is so.”
I must have missed that. Can someone please quote where this was done, with comment number so that I can see it for myself. Thanks in advance. 🙂
Sorry for the all the typos, friends, in #253. Been a long day and I’m tired, but they don’t change my original meaning.
And my blessings upon all of you, agree or disagree.
Folks, we are done with this conversation. I understand that the question might have been a legitimate attempt to find out where she stands, but either she has not seen this yet or does not want to answer. Either way, please, no more talk about any of this.
Move along…nothing to see here.
‘Move along…nothing to see here.”
My sentiments exactly. Let’s move on with the subject of the post itself.
No problem, Mr. President.
It’s time for me to get dinner on the table. It gets a little tricky trying to respond between making mashed potatoes….meatloaf…beans…
Sorry! Off topic.
……but just for the record I’m bummed that Sue didn’t answer. I really wanted to know…. 🙁
Sorry ,Susan, I think the answer should already be self evident. But whatever, let’s get back to the real substance of the post.
Yeah…..what was the substance of the post again? I forgot. 😉
Then maybe you are the one of the ones here that constantly needs to be reminded by CMP. 🙂
Getting back to the substance of the original post itself, (before this one gets closed down too, because it is totally off the subject) exactly what is your stand on this issue, unrelated to your personal opinion on Sue’s comments?
I am a complementarian, favoring the straightforward reading of the biblical text. Our church is essentially complementarian (of the ‘softer’ variety). None of our pastors are women, but women sometimes teach adult mixed-gender classes. I believe that a wife is to submit to her husband, but that an atmosphere of mutual submission is ideal. A wife should submit to her husband when there is an impasse and a decision has to be made. He will be responsible before God for that decision. I don’t believe that a husband should ever use this as an excuse to lord-it-over his wife, nor to treat her with distain or disrespect.
Why just today I handed my newly-retired husband the toothpaste he ordered me to get, and made it very clear that he was not to give me orders again…..and he’d better get that straight!
Then on those points we are in complete agreement.
God bless.
Good 🙂
….and I’m hoping my newly-retired-at-age-50 husband will get a job….so that I’m not quite so challenged by the submission issues! Once a sergeant, always a sergeant.
Let us just not hope that once we are privates, then we are not considered always privates then, huh ? 🙂
Even in the army they give promotions, right? Wonder if that happens in the church?
I agree with Susan (if I were married of course ). I find it interesting that with all the railing against the supposed subordination of women, the other side of the equation gets overlooked or dismissed – “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church”. If submission is giving up our right to lead, the husband has to essentially give up his life for the sake of his wife. That means he has to put the needs of his wife above his own. That is love. That is sacrifice. That is protection. Color me stupid, but I don’t find that oppressive at all.
The Original Post sets up a rigidly dualistic construct which, it seems to me, (please correct me if I’m wrong) makes the matter of being a complimentarian or an egalitarian a matter of an either/or choice with no nuance permitted.
From where I stand inside an egalitarian tradition, there is no need to be defensive about taking the position that an individual women might have been given the gift of leadership. Since I am not on the defensive – as was your “convert” to egalitarianism – I don’t have to make ridiculous statements like “men are not physically stronger than women” or “there are no observable behavioral differences between men and women”. Of course there are. That’s common sense.
For me, the main issue is that complimentarianism sets up a hierarchical structure and denies that there is any hierarchy. At least the male-headship people were honest and transparent about this.
The debate is NOT about whether or not men and women are ontologically different in the physical and emotional realms. The debate is about whether or not, in the realm of the Triune God and his Kingdom, there is something about a woman’s ontology that renders any spiritually gifted woman unfit for leadership over half the population. Or, looked at from a different perspective, is there a “male spiritual ontology” that requires him to assert spiritual authority over any and all women? As an egalitarian, my answer to both of these ontological questions is “no”.
Kay,
I was not going to respond to your last comment (#227) but changed my mind.
I find it interesting that you would say that submission is a man-woman directed work or that the Holy Spirit is not involved with the idea of a woman submitting to her husband. And yet the instruction to submit in Ephesians 5:22 proceeds from Paul’s command to be filled with the Spirit in 5:18.
As I noted in my comment #247, submission is at the heart of Christianity and it is only by the Spirit’s work that we are able to do so – first to Christ and then to each other.
I am very puzzled how you can say the Spirit is not involved in submission.
Pam,
“The debate is NOT about whether or not men and women are ontologically different in the physical and emotional realms. The debate is about whether or not, in the realm of the Triune God and his Kingdom, there is something about a woman’s ontology that renders any spiritually gifted woman unfit for leadership over half the population. Or, looked at from a different perspective, is there a “male spiritual ontology” that requires him to assert spiritual authority over any and all women? As an egalitarian, my answer to both of these ontological questions is “no”.”
And my point was that Evangelical Complementarians would all agree with this statement. No one would ever say that there is ontological inequality any more than they would subscribe to the heresy of subordinationalism in the Trinity.
Complementarians would just normally take the next logical step to admitting differences and say that there are certain areas that men are more qualified for and certain areas that women are more qualified for. Some of each of these will involve leadership. As well, complementarians would say that when it comes to the family and the pastorate, the Bible ideally sets these positions of authority.
The post is about the foundational points of each system, not giving the “across the spectrum,” which I certainly agree there is.
-matriarchalism -
hard egalitarianism -
soft egalitarianism -
complegalitarianism (how’s that?—I do think there is such a position!)
soft complementarianism -
hard complementarianism -
patriachalism
I strongly disagree with this list. While it is true that there are two opposing poles of patriarchalism and matriarchalism, egals are not connected at all with matriarchalism. However, complementarianism is birthed from patriarchalism and all its foundations are solidly rooted in patriarchalism. I consider egalitarianism to be the balancing middle between the two. I also consider soft comps to be very close to egals although I admit I don’t know what a soft or hard egal would be like.
The nature of Christian egalitarianism is freedom in Christ. We are all free to be whomever God created us to be. Thus, it is fine if some husbands like to cook and iron. It is fine if some wives like to leave major decision to their husbands. It is fine is some husbands like to lead major decision to their wives. Ministries, Christian services, and social vocations are between individuals and God, not to be determined by churches. We’ve no problems with Paul’s admonitions on submission. All are to love sacrificially (Epe. 5:1-2) and all are to be of a submissive attitude and nature to one another (Ephe. 5:21) this includes wives to husbands. I personally believe that this submission is an attitude and behavior that seeks to promote the good of the other. In this way real harmonious unity can occur. I believe this frees us from human created forumla’s that only some fit into.
“All are to love sacrificially (Epe. 5:1-2) and all are to be of a submissive attitude and nature to one another (Ephe. 5:21) this includes wives to husbands. I personally believe that this submission is an attitude and behavior that seeks to promote the good of the other. In this way real harmonious unity can occur.”
Here, here! This also is at the heart of true complementarianism. It bears repeating that we focus so much on the wife’s submission, that the husband’s command to love the wife sacrificially is equally as submissive. Leading the wife in actuality is serving her and putting her needs above his own. Both are called to defer to one another. That is at the heart of what Paul commends in Phil 2:3-8.
An important note: if someone reduces what we are talking about to cooking and ironing, they are seriously approching this from a purlely cultural basis. Those two “activities” have no real substance as they are neither roles nor necessary actions of any roles.
“I find it interesting that you would say that submission is a man-woman directed work or that the Holy Spirit is not involved with the idea of a woman submitting to her husband. And yet the instruction to submit in Ephesians”
“I am very puzzled how you can say the Spirit is not involved in submission.”
Lisa,
I think you must have my comment confused with that of someone else. Glance back, I said nothing like that. I believe in mutual submission.
I agree -“It bears repeating that we focus so much on the wife’s submission, that the husband’s command to love the wife sacrificially is equally as submissive.”
“We’ve no problems with Paul’s admonitions on submission. All are to love sacrificially (Epe. 5:1-2) and all are to be of a submissive attitude and nature to one another (Ephe. 5:21) this includes wives to husbands. I personally believe that this submission is an attitude and behavior that seeks to promote the good of the other. In this way real harmonious unity can occur. I believe this frees us from human created forumla’s that only some fit into.”
TL,
I agree with this as well.
Across the spectrum, from the most radical to the most radical on both sides:
-matriarchalism
-hard egalitarianism
-soft egalitarianism
-complegalitarianism (how’s that?—I do think there is such a position!)
-soft complementarianism
-hard complementarianism
-patriachalism
I, too, disagree with this list. While matriarchalism is the opposite of patriarchalism, egalitarianism by definition is the center. Thus, the list should be:
– total matriarchalism
– hard matriarchalism
– soft matriarchalism
– total egalitarianism
– soft patriarchalism
– hard patriarchalism
– total patriachalism
This is one reason why “complementarianism” is a misnomer, IMO. All sides or positions, whether matriarchal or patriarchal or egalitarian, regard males and females as being complementary in some ways, even if only at the most basic way – i.e., sexual reproducton. It’s how they define or restrict or play out the subordinate/superordinate positions of one sex versus the other in terms of hierarchies and power and control and decision-making – which is what patriarchalism/matriarchalism mean, i.e., power and superordination of men (women) vis-a-vis subordinate women (men) – that dictates where on the above spectrum a group or organization falls.
Which is again why I think the so-called “complementarians” are improperly redefining themselves, because they are for all intents and purposes patriarchalists. I.e., they believe that certain roles, functions, offices, decisions, positions of authority, etc., are best or only to be held by men, whereas those same men can do anything in terms of functions, offices, decisions, positions of authority, etc. – apart from sexual activities – that women in those organizations are allowed to do. Note that I am only speaking with reference to the church and the body of Christ, NOT the family/marriage relationship. I think the two need to be kept distinct/separate in this discussion.
“Which is again why I think the so-called “complementarians” are improperly redefining themselves, because they are for all intents and purposes patriarchalists.”
The problem with these type of discussions is that people have their categories that the other is going to automatically gravitate toward. No matter how much I have tried to look at it from a different perspective which changes things (much more accurately), we are going to continue to see things from our vantage point.
Therefore, you criticism and comparison of the “misnomer” of complementarianism does not work unless you stay within your system.
Oh well…such is the life of teaching theology!
The thing I thought of after reading this blog was how this played out in my dating (single) years. While dating lots of different guys in our church college group I soon became aware that I strongly gravitated toward the guys who came with a definite date plan and executed it, versus those who had the “Well…what do you want to do?” approach. Furthermore, i liked the guys who were generally strong decision makers. I remember there was one guy I was really interested in…but he was dating someone else. I thought that if I ever ended up with him I would want to marry him. Finally he asked me out. i lost all of my attraction for him on the first date because it bugged me that he was not really a leader, initiator, decision-maker. Incidentally, I learned that he had been raised by his mother without his father present (maybe he had died?). Believe me, I had no preconceived litmus test for what kind of guy I favored in this regard. This was just a discovery I made about guys and what I was naturally drawn toward. Some years later I remember a girl I knew who’d been married for about five years commenting that it bugged her that her husband wasn’t much of a decision maker. I think that God intended for men to be leader oriented, and it’s a good thing…which doesn’t preclude women from being able to demonstrate leadership abilities. I want my sons to be leader-ish and capable decision makers. I love seeing these qualities emerge in them. On the other hand it concerns me at times that my daughter is so extremely headstrong and demanding. I’m concerned that that might be a real problem if she marries. I’m not saying that I see strict roles either way, I’m just saying that I see God’s mandates as being rooted in how he created us…and it is GOOD!
CMP wrote:
Therefore, you (sic) criticism and comparison of the “misnomer” of complementarianism does not work unless you stay within your system.
CMP:
My statement that it’s a misnomer is based on the secular Random House Webster College Dictionary definitions. I.e., the “system” I operate in and “stay within” for defining and using these terms is the English language:
Patriarchy: 1. a. a form of social organization in which the father is the head of the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line. b. a society based on this social organization. 2. a. an institution or organization in which power is held by and transferred through males. b. the principles or philosophy upon which control by male authority is based.
Matriarchy: 1. a family, society or state governed by women. 2. a form of social organization in which the mother is head of the family and descent is reckoned in the female line.
Egalitarian: 1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life. 2. one who adheres to egalitarian beliefs.
Complement: 1. something that completes or makes perfect. 2. the quantity or amount that completes anything. 3. either of two parts or things needed to complete the whole; counterpart.
To put egalitarianism at the opposite end of patriarchalism/”complementarianism” instead of in the middle between patriarchalism and matriarchalism is to abuse/misuse the language and create a system that fails outside that system.
Eric, yes, I could agree with you about the chart but you would have to go this way:
Matriarchalism
Feminism
Egalitarianism
Complementarianism
Chauvinism
Patriachalism
But since others were not using Matriarchalism, but trying to label complementarianism as “patriachalism” I was putting patriarchalism in its place and contrasting it with the one closer to Egalitarianism, “matriarchalism.”
And my point was that Evangelical Complementarians would all agree with this statement. No one would ever say that there is ontological inequality any more than they would subscribe to the heresy of subordinationalism in the Trinity.
I have certainly seen people arguing Jesus’ “functional but not ontological” subordination to the Father precisely to defend complimentarianism.
Complementarians would just normally take the next logical step to admitting differences and say that there are certain areas that men are more qualified for and certain areas that women are more qualified for. Some of each of these will involve leadership. As well, complementarians would say that when it comes to the family and the pastorate, the Bible ideally sets these positions of authority.
Then I’m afraid that your argument is so nuanced and finely tuned, that I don’t understand it. From previous posts, you clearly object to the idea of a woman being a “senior pastor” (I presume that the epithet “senior” has some congruence with a theological point that you deem is extremely important?). Yet, from your definition above, as an ordained woman (who would not feel compelled to reject a “senior” calling on the grounds of my sex), I would fit your definition of a complimentarian.
At the end of the day, though, we obviously disagree. So I’m genuinely trying to understand what you think that the point of our disagreement might be without caricaturing your point of view as badly as I feel mine has been caricatured.
Pam, I would appreciate you not caricaturing my argument as a caricature 🙂
I am not sure what you are missing. It is very basic soft or evangelical complementarianism. Women cannot be in leadership over men in the church or in the family, but this does not mean that women cannot be in leadership over men period or that all women submit to all men at all. There will be many times when males, based on biblical principles, will have to submit to women.
The point is that if there are essential characteristic differences in males and female and, therefore, we are to instill and celebrate these differences, these will often predispose one sex above another in certian areas.
Not sure if you read the previous two posts, but they illustrate and explain this.
Michael,
”An important note: if someone reduces what we are talking about to cooking and ironing, they are seriously approching this from a purlely cultural basis. Those two “activities” have no real substance as they are neither roles nor necessary actions of any roles.”
It is good that you pointed that out, as there ARE segments of patriarchal hierarchalism that would disagree. I’m glad we agree on this point as well.
”Therefore, your criticism and comparison of the “misnomer” of complementarianism”
Perhaps, you are not aware of the roots of the movement called complementarian. Several of the old time egals, myself included, were around when CBMW was formed and coined the term, complementarian. The original gang were patriarchalists who wanted a different title that seemed softer. This is where the phrase “equal but different” (different in roles, equal before God)” was coined as well. Things have changed as time has gone by and some of the original gang have left because they thought the ‘misnomer’ of complementarianism was too soft on the hierarchal considerations. They were just patriarchalists (we’d say hard core patrearchalists) at heart and couldn’t let go an inch. The interesting thing is that they snatched the term from the Christian egals before they could think to use it in this way. Christian egals have always been about complementarity. Thus to us, we’re the ones really about complementarity and comps are really about a softer form of hierarchy. Confusing, eh! But that means there is a place where softer comps and egals join hands. 🙂
The point is that if there are essential characteristic differences in males and female and, therefore, we are to instill and celebrate these differences, these will often predispose one sex above another in certian areas.
Forgive me, but I’m not really aware of all the nuances of the complimentarian position. I grew up male-headship with claims such as “Women are obviously not meant to be in leadership because they are unreliable and less intelligent than men” (It WAS the 1960s!) So, they pulled no punches. To me, complimentarianism looks a lot like “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
I will probably now engage in what you consider to be a caricature so that will make us even. 🙂 It seems to me that you have some Scriptural passages that you think close your case and that must be adhered to; “the bible says it, so we can’t go against that”. I don’t really see a philosophical point that stands up (by the way, IMO, you have been using the concept of “ontology” slightly differently for the complimentarian and egalitarian point of view.)
As someone who never fit the stereotypical sex roles – although I’m neither a “tomboy” or “butch” by any stretch of the imagination – what you call celebrating gender differences feels to those of us who are not “sufficiently” feminine or masculine, as being told that we are spiritually and psychologically deficient. I can’t speak for being in a complimentarian environment as I was never in one. The exhaustion of being in a male-headship environment was that everyone was always trying to “fix” me because I liked to think and I wasn’t sufficiently brainless for their liking. I have male friends who felt inadequate in their masculinity because they also liked to think. Ironic, really.
TL,
That IS very interesting is is something that I was not aware of. I will have to look into that more as I certainly don’t want there to be a continually stumbling block by a guilt by association from those, like you, who are more familiar with a former expression of the movement. There are a lot of differences in “younger evangelicals” such as myself and we find that we often presumptuously take on associations that stack the deck against us, understandably.
All of that to say, “Thank You.” It may be a linch pen to the conversation, unity and understanding that would otherwise be possible!
I have been aware that there are some very good evangelical complementarians that are not comfortable with an association with CBMW, but was not sure why.
However, I hope that any institution, movement, or representation that starts as radical can morph and balance over time. Maybe that is the case with CBMW, maybe not.
Pam,
Thanks. And that is the point of this series…to help people understand how most evangelical complementarians do not adhere to a fundamentalistic variety which look a lot more like patriarchalism.
About those who do not “sufficiently” display there characteristics, without getting into examples, there are all types of traits that people have that are a result of the fall. One example is those men that are predisposed to femininity, this does not make carrying out actions in accordance is right. We would say that they should not follow through here, especially when it violates principles which sometimes end in males dressing as females and homosexuality.
Therefore, to say that there are built in characteristics that are wrong is not a problem with me. We should do all we can to correct and shape these things, not approve of them in our passivity.
CMP:
I, too, had heard that the so-called or now-called “complementarians” (i.e., the CBMW folks) used to be “patriarchalists,” but felt they needed a more acceptable and less “the man is the boss” term to call themselves. So they adopted/coined the term “complementarian.”
That is one reason I continue to believe that they should be honest and call themselves “patriarchalists” (whether soft, medium, or hard) and that “complementarian” is a misnomer in regards to them, because their “opponents” (so to speak) – i.e., egalitarians – are also complementarians. I.e., it’s not a case of complementarians versus non-complementarians, but of patriarchalists (again, whether hard, soft, or medium) versus non-patri-matri-archal egalitarians.
If you want to use the term “complementarian,” you in fact have patriarchal complementarians versus egalitarian complementarians (I don’t know of any Christian matriarchal complementarians). And since the term describes them both, it’s redundant and meaningless to use it.
When it comes to one sex being or not being superordinate over the other sex strictly because of the sex/gender of the other person, you have three terms: patriarchalism, matriarchalism, and sexual egalitarianism. The fact that there are two sexes involved means that all three groups hold to some view of complementarity, even if it’s the most basic one that says that it takes a male and a female to be a complete human race.
I might agree with you Eric but for the arguments that most of the egalitarians are making in my latest post. Well, it is more than that. I have studied and read on this for a while. The essential characteristics that are necessary to be present to be complementarian are both affirmed and denied by egals. Even those that affirm them really back off when pushed to take it to its logical conclusion, but you will have to read the latest post to see where I am going with this.
So, we are going to talk past each other here to some degree as what Egals often aspire to, they are not in actuality.
But, either way, this is a really good process of working some of this out and I appreciate the way that many are truly attempting to understand…I will continue to do so as well.
I guess it depends upon what the meaning of the word “complementarity” is.
The fact that egalitarians do recognize a difference between men and women – even if for some or many it’s largely around only the major difference (i.e., the sexual/reproductive one(s)) – coupled with the fact that no egalitarians I know of believe that humans can be humans with only one sex, means to me that they believe in male-female complementarity in at least some form or fashion, even if it’s only biological complementarity.
So when you suggest that some egalitarians deny “the essential characteristics that are necessary to be present to be complementarian,” I don’t understand what you mean by “complementarian.”
I.e., what characteristics are necessary to be present for a person to view males and females as complementary in at least one or some sense? Is holding to biological complementarity not enough for a person to be able to say they are complementarian with respect to males and females? What things must a person believe or profess beyond this for them to be able, in your judgment, to say that they view males and females as complementary when it comes to the description of the human race or male-female relationships?
About those who do not “sufficiently” display there characteristics, without getting into examples, there are all types of traits that people have that are a result of the fall.
I know this is not a theological argument, it is more of a testimony.
I spent approximate 15 years – from age 15 to 30 – asking God to make me content not to study theology, asking forgiveness for being more intelligent (and prideful) that I ought to be as a woman, even asking forgiveness for being good at math.
What I learned in those 15 years of prayer was that God created me the way I am, with gifts to be used to his glory. Rather than it being a sin for me to love studying theology, I came to understand that it was a sin not to do so.
I no longer buy the argument that what is admirable in a man can be sinful in a woman. If something is admirable, it is admirable. If something is a gift, it is a gift.
Eric, all I mean is essential characteristic differences that go beyond strength and reproduction.
Pam, I know of no substantial complementarian would would even be in the country of saying that women should not study theology.
That is terrible and not complementarianism!
Eric #289
“So when you suggest that some egalitarians deny “the essential characteristics that are necessary to be present to be complementarian,” I don’t understand what you mean by “complementarian.”
Agreed. Christian egals believe in the dictionary definition of complementarity and always have. Modern day comps have changed the meaning of the word to fit the ‘movement’ of benevolent male dominance hierarchies.
So, we’re back to using the word “essential” again, eh?
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/02/complementarianism/#comment-26186 (and some of the following posts)
😀 😀
“I love words. They can be used in so many different ways….”
Pam,
Why do you suppose the complementarian model supports a man being more intelligent than a woman or preclude her from studying or even instructing in theology? It is not sinful to be more intelligent than a man. A number of women are just as smart or even smarter….complementarian, seminary educated women who use their gifts amply.
In fact, I have heard at least 2 of professors at DTS state that women out-test the men. And I believe it was my current greek prof who was one of them.
No, the issue has nothing to do with intelligence.
Michael,
“Eric, all I mean is essential characteristic differences that go beyond strength and reproduction.”
It would be good if you spelled that out since pretty much no one knows what differences you are alluding to. My guess is that you will not be able to substantially prove any other hard wired differences other than physical (includes hormonal and cellular) and reproductive.
Lisa could “out-test” us all here!!!
As well, please notice that I, as a committed complementarian, have Lisa posting on this blog with me…and she is no “token” poster. I believe that men and women can learn from her!
Pam, here is an example of a woman that I think is kicking some big time evangelical hiney. And there are others, who I know hold to a complementarian position
Kay Arthur, Precept Ministries
Priscilla Shirer
Dr. Karen Jobes, professor New Testament studies at Wheaton College
I’m sure there are many more but these are some that rise to the surface for me. So you see, the argument that women cannot use their gifts to impact broadly, just doesn’t really wash, I’m afraid.
TL, well, everything that we are is physical or chemical in some ways (from the standpoint of scientific proof). The characteristics result from these things doing they?
Do hormonal traits tend one sex toward certian characteristics more than the other? Ways of thinking? Disposition? Emotion?
This is why I said other than “physical strength” and reproduction.
Michael, if I could post a blushy icon I would. 😛
“Do hormonal traits tend one sex toward certian characteristics more than the other? Ways of thinking? Disposition? Emotion?”
Not ways of thinking! Well, men and women’s brains are hardwired differently as a result of hormonal influence in the womb. This does not however, preclude them toward any particular activities but rather influences how we problem solve. Hormones do influence disposition and emotions. However, both men and women can, should and do control their disposition and emotions.
I don’t think this will help you paint anyone into a corner of restricting the allowed activities of women though.