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"
TL, I did warn at the outset what my intentions were here. 🙂
You said:
“Not ways of thinking!” So NO.
But wait…
“Well, men and women’s brains are hardwired differently as a result of hormonal influence in the womb.” So yes?
Not sure…
Not dealing with implications yet.
I’ll ask it again…
Do you think that there is a timeless way to define “masculinity” and “femininity”?
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.
I’m not supposing that, necessarily.
I said that I didn’t fit stereotypical gender roles and that I found it difficult to be shoe-horned into them. Michael responded by saying – as I understood it – that not fitting these roles was a result of the fall.
Stereotypical gender roles in male headship in the 1960s most certainly did include the idea that men were more intelligent than women, that women were “emotional” and therefore unreliable in most things (theologically defended by the argument that Eve lead Adam astray) and that women were to submit in all things to their husbands. This included the teaching of enduring physical abuse from one’s husband, if that was the lot that God had given to a woman. Being intelligence was not considered a sin, but using that intelligence was seen as the sin of pride; women were to be silent.
I’m assuming that you will say that this is not the same as complimentarianism in the 21st century.
But if we see gender stereotypes as “godly” and if we see not fitting gender stereotypes as – let’s say – “deficient in holiness”, then who determines the gender stereotypes? The pervading stereotypes don’t seem wildly biblical to me as there are many strong women in the bible and we even have instances of women leading men. So our current gender stereotypes seem entirely subjective to me. In a male-led community, it will be the men who determine what the gender norms are to be.
I continue to see “soft complimentarianism” offering no other argument than “Fortunately, or regrettably, the bible says woman may not lead the faith community, and the faithful disciple will follow that rule, like it or not”.
[1] It goes without saying that I don’t agree with this, but I understand that…
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.
Okay then. Women are restricted in the very areas where they demonstrate a greater predisposition. Women test better than men in seminary but are not to have leadership in a seminary. Why not make a woman the head of the seminary in view of her greater disposition?
Pam, I don’t think its fair to confuse the Biblical model as complementarians propose with how society has treated those roles. If you indicate we take our cues from culture then that makes us just as guilty of the same accusation levied against egals.
I also think you are overlooking the point of what Michael is try to get at. He is simply offering a possible explanation for reason that Paul makes the statement he does in 1 Timothy 2. I don’t see the need to classify gender differences as stereotypes nor is the complementarian position supported because of them. Rather, it is supported due to the belief that there does seem to be a mandate for submission and this for the sake of order in the home and local assembly. Now by order, that does not preclude a mutuality of respect, love and deferment to the other. Nor does it mean that mean women are deficient, or less intelligent or unable to use their gifts or share in the leadership of the faith community, although that leadership may not take the form of the person ultimately in charge.
I gladly uphold a complementarian position because I am convinced by scripture for male headship in the home and local assembly and for the mandate to submit to God’s authority. I am not my own anyway and for me to make demands to use gifts that were given to me because I believe I should have that right, cuts across the grain of why we were given the gifts in the first place.
Sue, that comment was directed at Pam’s assertion that women should be less intelligent. The comment should be considered strictly in that context and not misapplied to the broader conversation.
Lisa,
No problem, and personally, I just don’t have it in me to ever agitate for a leadership position although I fully support those who do.
I do challenge the comp position which acknowledges women’s somewhat greater disposition in languages and does not promote a woman to be head of the exegesis dept. on the basis of that predisposition.
Sue, in all honesty, I would not have a problem with a women being the head over an exegetical dept. Why would I? It is not the local assembly where the woman is carring the responsiblility of a pastor and all it implications nor that of the head of the house in a two parent family.
Simply put, it goes against nothing that I have argued in this series…in fact, I have reiterated this many times.
In fact, if I remember correcty, DTS does have a wonderful women prof in the the Old Testament dept teaching Hebrew.
http://www.dts.edu/about/profiles/Dorian_G_Coover-Cox
If DTS is seen as a bastion of conservative Evangelicalism, let this serve as an illustration that no one misses least they continue to attack straw men cultural perceptions.
It is not the local assembly where the woman is carring the responsiblility of a pastor and all it implications nor that of the head of the house in a two parent family.
Michael,
Please. What is it about the two parent family that requires a male leader, while the one parent family does not require a male leader. Is the two parent family intrinsically more difficult to lead?
Clearly most families in NA function as at least nominally on the egal model and they survive at least as well as comps. There is no measurable difference in divorce rate.
Michael, yes Dorian Coover-Cox is the OT prof and she is such a sweetheart. Since we are focused on service this semester in Spiritual Formation, our group invited her to our session last week as the voice of experience. She talked about her journey and provide some words of advice. Two things she said stuck with me and I think are especially pertinent to this discussion. I can’t remember vertabim, so I quote loosely.
1) While she vaguely mentioned discrimination, she indicated she doesn’t concern herself with those kinds of attitudes since they will have to answer to God.
2) She does not restrict the use of gifts to how she think she should use them or impose upon God how she should use them. He does not even owe her the job she has and maintains gratitude at his hand in having her there. She stressed the importance of using the gifts in whatever capacity God so deemed
I’ve also had the opportunity to have lunch with her and other conversations. A very admirable woman.
To Lisa, part 1
Pam, I don’t think its fair to confuse the Biblical model as complementarians propose with how society has treated those roles. If you indicate we take our cues from culture then that makes us just as guilty of the same accusation levied against egals.
Lisa, you know what your “Biblical model” looks like, but I honestly have no idea. I don’t live in a complimentarian world. I’ve not lived in a male-headship world since about 1975. These are not models that I’m familiar with.
Give me a concrete example. I am an ordained minister whose denomination sends me where it discerns that my gifts may be best used. We don’t have “senior” and “junior” pastors. My denomination and I regard my being sent as a matter of discipline, as it would be for a male pastor. I presume that I’m not behaving in line with complimentarian values. So, in your view, would I resign from the denomination and look for a denomination, church or assembly where I would visibly place myself under the rule of a man in order to give a good example of womanhood? Or not? I honestly have no idea.
I also think you are overlooking the point of what Michael is try to get at. He is simply offering a possible explanation for reason that Paul makes the statement he does in 1 Timothy 2.
Yes, I understand that he is trying to offer a possible explanation. What troubles me is that he appears to believe a lot of the stereotypes. Again, it just looks like a more politically-correct version of what I grew up with. To be honest, his argument would appear a lot stronger to me if he’d not offered this explanation.
To Lisa, part 2
the complementarian position … it is supported due to the belief that there does seem to be a mandate for submission and this for the sake of order in the home and local assembly.
Since I have had the experience of many years of orderly egalitarian situations in both home and church, this argument simply does not stand up for me.
I am not my own anyway and for me to make demands to use gifts that were given to me because I believe I should have that right, cuts across the grain of why we were given the gifts in the first place.
Hmm, that’s not particularly subtle! 😉
In an egalitarian context where everyone, men and women, assume that a woman who has gifts of leadership should use them, women don’t “make demands”. I left a very successful secular career because men and women in my congregation and my denomination told me that they thought I was being called to ministry.
I too would be suspicious of someone who said “God wants me to lead and everyone get out of my way who doesn’t agree with me.”
Sue, I was simply correcting what you had said about complementarians and my arguments. You said that my arguments would not allow a woman to lead in the exegetical dept. That was not true.
If you don’t think that the traditional two parent, male and female, family is superior, that is a different issue and I don’t want to turn that direction, but your opinion is noted.
One parent families, whether male or female, are not ideal at all. And I would not say that a one parent family with the father being the one parent is superior either. In fact, I don’t know of any complementarian who, in divorce situations, would believe that the child is better off, de facto, with the father than with the mother. In fact, I would be bias in this case and go with the mother because of their unique ability to nurture in the home. I believe that the type of nurturing that mothers provide is more important than the type of leadership men provide. So let that be clear, leadership does not equal “more important” in any way.
Sue,
It’s interesting that you should say that and I agree in part. I am a single mother (widowed since 2004) and responsible for raising my 12 year old son by myself. I consider the situation a real deficiency as I often struggle to serve both roles, particularly as it relates to my son. I believe boys need male guidance; I cannot teach him to be a man. So I often feel like I’m serving in a role I was not designed for. And I do feel the sting of not having a proper head – for the household, myself and my son. It is a situation where it behooves me to learn contentment but one I will always consider deficient. God’s grace is sufficient and he has, does and will provide.
My concern is that bible.org published wedding vows that established women as those who receive, follow, submit, surrender responsibility, obey and respond. It features women as the empty vessel to be filled with masculinity, women who cannot bear full responsibility before God for their children.
As a benficiary of this teaching, I truly wish it were against the law. I really don’t think the scope of suffering is ever truly considered for women who are made to receive, follow, respond, obey, etc etc to sinful men. And I add that ALL men are sinful. May God forgive this teaching of the descration of women in their own home, where they should most rightly find shelter and support.
I know women who sleep in the garage, one who put up a shed for herself and her dogs in the back yard, women who see a psychiatrist once a week. Women who survive on medication. Women who live to die.
Is there any kind of morphine that will dull the pain of this doctrine?
And, just to make it clear one more time:
I believe in the ordination of women. I also believe that women can be pastors.
Three conservatives that agree with me here:
1. Aubrey Malphurs, professor of Pastoral ministries at DTS (Yes, they let him be on staff!)
2. Harold Hoehner, former chair of the New Testament Dept at DTS!
3. Mark Young, President of Dever Theological Seminary and former elder at Chuck Swindoll’s church!
All of them, like me, believe that women cannot be in the position of “head pastor” or elder in authority over men in the sense that they are carrying the primary responsibilities for these men of discipleship, leadership, reproving, exhorting, and instructing. See my first post to help you understand why (i.e. inclination toward the type of leadership involved and response from the people).
In fact, when it comes to the area of specific discipleship that involves the type of intimacy that is necessary, in many cases, I as a pastor, do not allow a man to be in a position of authority over a woman. (Put that in your pipe!)—but that would be unique to me.
Lisa,
Perhaps you feel the sting of not being part of a couple, of not having a male co-parent. I feel that sting also. I do believe that parents are intended to be male and female.
You must consider that the man who loses his wife, and is the parent of a girl will feel the same deficiency.
The feeling of missing the opposite sex parent, has no relation to missing the so-called leader of the household.
If your theory that the family needs a male because it needs a leader, then the single mother would be far worse off as a parent than the single father, because we know that a family needs a leader.
It breaks my heart that some will even agree with the ordination of women as long as women are subordinate in the home.
You don’t actually agree that the restriction of 1 Tim. 2:12 is only for women. You agree with women leading in the workplace and church.
But in the home, you preserve the domain for the leadership of men.
Sue,
And I know men who would rather live in the corner of an attic than deal with the sinful tendencies of their wives then to stay married. These are abuses that we all know both sides have and we all do our best to respond by ultimately submitting to the will of the Lord. In the garage or in the attic, egalitarian or complementarian, marriage is not easy.
Sue,
Yes, that is right. The ideal leadership position in the home is the male. Does this mean that they always do it? Not at all. Does it mean that the women is in sin if she assumes it do to their husbands passivity? Absolutely not. If the woman is being mentally of physically abused, does she have to submit? Not at all. (Although, mental abuse is very real, it is also something that I am much more careful with—like, “My husband won’t let me paint the bathroom pink” does not qualify for mental abuse.
I have seen mental abuse of the husband before. It may have hurt you pretty bad, but it drove my sister to suicide.
Michael, yes, I remember well your rather hidden intentions. I’m not worried. I’m enjoying waiting for you to pounce. 🙂
”Do you think that there is a timeless way to define “masculinity” and “femininity”?”
Other than the fact that men are masculine and women are feminine, No! Human beings are far too unique and complicated to be able to shove the two genders into big and little boxes of any sort.
Yes, that is right. The ideal leadership position in the home is the male.
You are saying that us single gals are less fit than single men to lead in the home.
And I know men who would rather live in the corner of an attic than deal with the sinful tendencies of their wives then to stay married.
Yup, me too. I wrote this ealier,
“If a couple disagree about every single thing including how the wife sneezes – all is good because, guess what, the husband is the tie-breaker. If you think I exaggerate, no I don’t. Some men and women live this life, whether egal or comp, Christian or not.
But Christians destroy the soul if they teach that God uniquely wants women to experience this kind of life. It is the spiritual skewer with which the woman is attacked that makes this kind of abuse a spiritual hell, and not just general misery available to all who marry, men or women.”
I acknowledge that abuse can be in any direction. But why is the greater suffering reserved for women?
“like, “My husband won’t let me paint the bathroom pink” does not qualify for mental abuse”
True. However, the husband demanding to paint the bathroom dark blue might be. 🙂 I’ve a friend that happened to. Humans are very interesting sometimes. Mutuality in major decisions is definitely the kinder way to go for both of them.
TL,
That is another, yes/no answer!
“Other than the fact that men are masculine and women are feminine, No”
So, yes, because there are fundamental characteristics that we see in men that are masculine and fundamental characteristics that we see in women that are feminine.
I am not sure what the “no” would be about then since all we have to do is pin point what you mean that men are masculine and women are feminine. Then, the next step is to ask Do you think that masculinity can predispose someone toward one thing and femininity toward another.
“The ideal leadership position in the home is the male.”
IMO the ideal leadership of the home should be a partnership of husband and wife. Really leadership is for the children. Wives don’t need a leader. Can you cite any Scriptures that say women need to be lead about and have decisions made for them. I’m very aware of the usual ones hierarchalists cite, and none of them say such.
I have seen mental abuse of the husband before. It may have hurt you pretty bad, but it drove my sister to suicide.
Michael,
I am assuming that you mean that your sister was mentally abused by her husband. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This is what I don’t understand. The teaching of male leadership, of the submission or the wife, of the shame of divorce, is an unbearable cruelty. It is true that I did not commit suicide. I cry for your sister.
Why do Christians put women on the cross? You tell me.
Sue,
“You are saying that us single gals are less fit than single men to lead in the home.”
To lead, yes. To nurture, no. What is more important? In my opinion and the opinion of most complementarians, nurturing. That is when when all things are equal in divorce cases you will normally find that complementarians say to give the child to the mom.
And you know what, I have not stats to back this up, but I bet that complementarians would be more inclined to go in this direction than Egalitarians. I believe that Egals would be less partial about who the child goes to. If I am right, it would show that while complementarians support male leadership in the home, they more highly value nurturing than Egalitarians. Egals love leadership. Comps love nurturing. That is, if I am right.
“I am not sure what the “no” would be about then since all we have to do is pin point what you mean that men are masculine and women are feminine. Then, the next step is to ask Do you think that masculinity can predispose someone toward one thing and femininity toward another.”
Men are masculine because they have heavy bones and denser muscles, and more testosterone. How they express that other than the sexual aspects is just too different from man to man to be able to say all men do this and not this. Doesn’t work.
Since you seem to think you can, why not share?
To lead, yes. To nurture, no.
Michael,
We provide and protect. We pay the bills, we exert authority. The appropriate single mother is the authority over her children just like Lydia over her household.
Authority is really responsibility. We are legally obliged to bear full responsibility for our children.
While boys will identify with male models for masculininity and girls female, the single parent, either male or female MUST bear full responsibility.
Women are designed to be the authority over teenagers and young adults. Just look at schools. Are women teachers less leaders than male teachers, less authoritative.
Please indicate in what particular way a single women are less fit to lead a family than a single man is.
“To lead, yes. To nurture, no”
Nurturing is not peculiar to women. Nurturing babies with one’s own body is. But nurturing is something husbands are to do as well. Nurturing is caring for, protecting, providing for, feeding, and more.
Ektrephei. Husbands are to ektrephei their wives as they do their own bodies and as the Lord does the church. Ephe. 5:29
If I am right, it would show that while complementarians support male leadership in the home, they more highly value nurturing than Egalitarians. Egals love leadership. Comps love nurturing. That is, if I am right.
Never heard such bunk! Egal women are motherly and nurturing. I work with a group of them, and they nurture like any other woman. They sometimes foster children and adopt in additon to being teachers. I do not for one minute believe that leadership and nurturing have to exist in two separate parents.
You have some stereotype of an egal woman. The egal women I work celebrate each baby born to a member of the staff. We have a strong Roots of Empathy program with a mother and baby coming into the classroom to develop the nurturing trait in all children.
Atheists, fundamentalists, Buddhist, agnostics, there is absolutely no difference in how nurturing these women are.
Men are more aggressive, competative, less emotionally accute.
Girls develop right side of brain faster than boys: leads to talking, vocabulary, pronunciation, reading earlier, often better memory.
Boys develop left side quicker: visual/spatial/logical skills, perceptual skills, better at math, problem solving, building and figuring out puzzles.
Women use both hemispheres of brain; corpus callosum almost always thicker in women.
These differences are found in different types of loyalty in the families, men are more risk takers, women are more social in their thinking, men are more individualistic.
Just to name a few…
It is legalism that drives people in sane. It is the abuse that kills spirituality. It plays out in all sorts of abuses in the church. But this does not make the principles wrong, just the application.
And, yes. That is what I meant about my sister. But you know what? I have been on the cross quite a bit myself. It is never good and spiritual, physical, and emotional abuse is always something the church should preach against. However, the cross that we all have to bear is our lot and is a necessary part of following Christ. But to act as if complementarianism is responsible for this is simply an emotional response in my opinion. One that I have every reason to make, but refuse to do so because I believe I have an understanding that goes beyond my particular bad experience.
Sue, that gets back to the “Why” question that is hard to answer. I would jsut refer to my first post on this issue.
TL,
Of course men can, do, and are supposed to nurture. Women are to lead. We are all called and able to do these things. The point is that most complementarians see the women as more capable in this more important area. They are, generally speaking, less capable in a less important area, leadership in the home.
Just because we interpret the man as being the head of the wife and family does not mean that this alleviates the woman of leadership responsibilities, as a co-leader, nor does it mean that she lacks these abilities or inclinations in total.
Sue,
“Never heard such bunk!” NEVER!??? Never, ever??? Wow.
I did not say that Egals don’t value nurturing. In the context, I was saying that it seems that Egals value leadership more than nurturing, while Comps value nurturing more. That is why, if I am correct, comps support, when all things are equal, giving the child to the mother in a divorce situation and egals are more nutral.
However, I don’t have any studies to reference on this. It is just an assumption so I don’t want to hang on this too much.
But my main point needs to be clear. I believe that women, no matter what religion or race, are, generally speaking, better nurturers. AND, I believe that nurturing qualities are more important than leadership qualities in the family. Therefore, in this case, I am bias toward the gifts of women and the hierarchy goes a different way! Women are actually above men in importance due to one of their essential gifts contributing to a role of such importance.
“Egals love leadership. Comps love nurturing. That is, if I am right.”
Doesn’t make sense. The whole comp movement is about men being benevolent leaders in pretty much all areas of life. That’s what hierarchies and roles are all about. There isn’t any real way to soft peddle that.
“Therefore, in this case, I am bias toward the gifts of women and the hierarchy goes a different way! Women are actually above men in importance due to one of their essential gifts contributing to a role of such importance.”
Perhaps you are biased for WOMEN to have all the nurturing gifts, so that the MEN can have all leadership gifts. You didn’t really expect us to buy that did you?
TL,
My point is that I, as a complementarian, believe that the gift of and inclination to nurturing is more important than that of leadership. Therefore, in this “hierarchy” of what I value more, the woman is ahead. It is all a matter of perspective.
Egals are always fighting for the “chair” of leadership giving the impression that it is more important than the “chair” of nurturing. Concerning the “chair” of nurturing, in my estimation, Egals devalue it in their pursuit to sit in the leadership chair (which, ironically, is not as important or vital 90 percent of the time).
“Leadership”?
All egals want is a little respect.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T 😀
They want women to have the same respect as men, and vice-versa. The same rights. The same opportunities and ability (not physical, but legal/permitted) to do a job, fill a position, perform a function, hold an office, be a teacher, leader, pastor, bishop, elder, deacon, etc., commensurate with their gifts and abilities and calling, and not have such denied them or force them to be subordinate to the other sex simply because their own sex trumps (in a negative way) everything else about them.
Christ is the male. The church is His bride, the female. Christians are members of one another and members of His body. They are all “female” in relation to Him, and are brothers and sisters of one another. One is their Teacher. One is their Lord. In Christ there is not male and female. All have clothed themselves with Christ and are complete in Him. They no longer want themselves or others to be under a yoke of slavery or to be treated as anything less than adopted children of God. They are no longer slaves.
” The point is that most complementarians see the women as more capable in this more important area. They are, generally speaking, less capable in a less important area, leadership in the home.”
That is patronizing doublespeak. Although I doubt you mean it to be. It’s the – the one who rocks the cradle rules the world – kind of patting on the head. The pretense is that of course the homemaking role that we men don’t want is very important. Of course it’s important. No woman would ever deny it. But that fact has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with privileging men with control and direction of their home to which women are supposed to yield.
“Perhaps you are biased for WOMEN to have all the nurturing gifts, so that the MEN can have all leadership gifts. You didn’t really expect us to buy that did you?”
I don’t know if you are serious. But please trust me when I say that I am not fighting for men to have all leadership gifts (I have even argued against this over and over). It could be in some cases, but I assure you that there is not any motivation in me (that I know of) that seeks such. I truly believe that men and women are of equal importance and that leadership is not as important to the world as nurturing.
I have no ambition for “men” in general of to fight for my sex. I love, respect, and appreciate all women. I actually grew up in a complementarian home where my father was almost completely absent all my life and my mother had to step in to all relevant leadership roles. That along with growing up with three outspoken sisters is something, in this case, I can say helps me to have a unique perspective here that can be alleviated of temptations to accuse me of power mongering for men.
“Egals are always fighting for the “chair” of leadership giving the impression that it is more important than the “chair” of nurturing. Concerning the “chair” of nurturing, in my estimation, Egals devalue it in their pursuit to sit in the leadership chair (which, ironically, is not as important or vital 90 percent of the time).”
I disagree. It’s clever thinking, I’ll give you that. But it won’t fly. The one who denies that ‘chair’ and holds it for himself is the one who is in pursuit of the leadership chair. And that in my opinion, is the cornerstone of compism.
Egals want to yield that chair to those who are truly gifted.
I like what Eric said. We don’t need false honor. We just want individuals to be respected for who they really are.
Eric, I appreciate what you have said and understand that.
My belief is, though, that men and women are not equal. There are many things that women are much better than men at. And there are many things that men are better than women. That is why we complement each other.
However, in Christ, we are all equal. We are equal in dignity and importance. We are equal in God’s affection. We are equal partakers of the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
I don’t think there is anything wrong or demeaning about saying this, especially when the gifts that women have, in my opinion, are more often than not, more important than that of men.
TL,
The very fact that you believe that it is patronizing demonstrates how different our perspectives are and simply serves to demonstrate my point that Egals simply do not value the gifts of nurturing the was comps do (although, in truth, it is just you and I right now! But I still think it is safe to say that is true).
TL,
And we want God’s design as we see it to be capitalized on so that we don’t neuter society on a fight for the wrong thing. You see it as a fight for the right of leadership, we see it as a fight for God’s design to be acknowledged celebrated in every area that we are different so that we can capitalize on these things. To stand neutral and not instill God’s design is to make all of society less effective and is counter productive to the world, whether one is a Christian or not.
“I don’t know if you are serious. But please trust me when I say that I am not fighting for men to have all leadership gifts (I have even argued against this over and over). It could be in some cases, but I assure you that there is not any motivation in me (that I know of) that seeks such. I truly believe that men and women are of equal importance and that leadership is not as important to the world as nurturing.”
If you are serious, then why are you vying for men to have all the leadership responsibilities in church, home and society and denying those to women. Just saying that nurturing (children) is more important isn’t a good reason to deny women from other pursuits they are gifted for. Women are capable of doing more than raising children. Just like men are capable of doing more than raising children. Not all women want to teach, preach, and do other ministries in the church. Nor do all women want to be corporate leaders in society. But for those who do, what good does it do to try to prevent them from doing so.
Have you ever tried putting yourself in women’s shoes. Consider the idea that because you are a man and have more muscular strength in general than women, women decided that all men would be consigned to the very important jobs of farming, building, and other things hugely important to society….. and women would do the lesser job of leadership responsibilities in society, home and church since they didn’t have the strengths as men.
AND, I believe that nurturing qualities are more important than leadership qualities in the family.
You don’t understand. Leadership can shut down all nurturing completely. How can I nurture my son when he has run away from home to another continent.
He changed his name, he gave up his passport, he gave up his family, language, country and his whole identity.
I had to establish a home with myself as single parent, and eventually he did come home to be nurtured, a year and a half later. There is no nurturing without providing safety first. Do you understand?
My daughter was in the hospital, seriously ill, undiagnosed, and I was told that I had to go home and was not stay and sleep in her room although the nurse had asked me to.
I had to defy that. There was no other way. The email that our son was gone and that night in the hospital happened about two weeks apart.
I had to repent of a life in which my nurturing was shut down by male leadership.
There is no proper nurturing without having authority also. This is impossible. If the wife does not have authority to nurture she cannot nurture.
TL,
This is probably where I will have to call it quits with you. You said:
“If you are serious, then why are you vying for men to have all the leadership responsibilities in church, home and society and denying those to women.”
This makes me think that you have not even been reading anything I said or that you are so intent on arguing from the stereotypes that you have in your mind that you are not able to learn together with me on this. I did not say that men should have all the leadership responsibilities in the church, home, and society! I have made it a point to qualify this so much. I know that it is hard to you to keep up on this so I am not blaming you. I just don’t have time to say the same thing over and over only to get back into the same rut that the original post was designed to correct!
Either way, good talking to you. Always too to work out thoughts through conversation in real life, not just books.
Unlike others on this blog, it is because my feminine soul and my mothering was shut down by subordination that I protest. I don’t care about pastorship or outside leadership for myself. I have non-Christians to value my skills. Piffle on recognition and church leadership, but give women the right to be the mothers of their children. What burdens you put on women!
I do support women in ministry, but it is not my concern that women gain recognition, rather that they can provide protection for other women.