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"
First Susan,
“Leadership can shut down all nurturing completely.” This does not mean Leadership DOES or MUST shut down… Just because something can go wrong does not mean that it is wrong.
Second, nuturing (since we seem to be on this subject) is first with one’s immediate family, but extends far beyond this. I used to give lectures to single women about this, showing how their nuturing drive is not simply to be put into action if they have a family, but it is for the world. Women nurture the world, society, and in every relationship that they are involved in. I am sure you think of yourself as nurturing in you ministry to people you don’t even know. I sure do.
”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.”
First I’d like to say thank you for allowing us to really talk. I appreciate that.
I do not see it as a fight for the right of leadership. I see it as hierarchalists withholding opportunities for women that they should not be withholding. I see it as putting individual women in bondage and chains hindering them from pursuing dreams and goals that God has gifted them for. We are not talking just about leadership. I appreciate that you seem to like the idea of husband and wife sharing leadership in the home. So that isn’t the problem. It’s the rest of life. Women’s lives should be free just like men to enjoy the world and not be confined to a home. Allowing women to be individuals with dreams and gifts and skills they can pursue is NOT neutering society.
I do not buy your idea that such is God’s design. God loves His people, all of them. It is not love to tell women that they cannot do this and this and that because men think they do it better. What is so scary about a woman loving to teach the Bible and doing it well, maybe even better than some men? What is so scary about a woman preaching and being really good at it. Joy Dawson was an awesome inspiring speaker. Ann Graham Lotz is also…. And many more women. Why would men be afraid to learn from her.
““Leadership can shut down all nurturing completely.”
Perhaps this is true when people think of leadership as all about authority and control. But Jesus gave us the example in Matt. 20 that true leadership is about serving and service. Jesus came not to be served but to serve and give His life as a ransom for others, to bring life.
Sue, I am so sorry for what you have gone through. Believe me, I do understand in more ways than I can express here on the blog.
However, it seems that your personal experiences have tainted you from being able to see the issue in a way that is balanced and helpful. I am sure that you could nurture those who are in need and experiencing similar circumstances with tenderness, love, and support, but I don’t see that your approach here is productive from an education standpoint. I am not saying that experience always taints or is always a deterrent to objectivity (which none of us really have), but yours, being the driving force of your view (as you admitted above), seems to be.
I say that with as much love as possible from one who really does not know you other than interactions here and there on the blog.
“Joy Dawson was an awesome inspiring speaker. Ann Graham Lotz is also…. And many more women. Why would men be afraid to learn from her.”
Again TL, I don’t think you have been reading me at all. You are talking about someone else here.
Michael,
You contribute you own personal experiences in other areas. Are your ideas tainted? How can you point the finger like this?
When you know that male leadership can destroy female nurturing, that this is a fact, how can you continue to support this view?
I also want you to know that this does not in any way affect my scholarship any more than being make affects male scholarship.
You now seek to discredit me, and you somehow think that God honours those without emotional commitments.
If male authority is causing women to create blogs where they raise money to help women leave their husbands and Christianity altogether, how can it be justified. You cannot undo these things. You could make a difference by acknowledging reality.
I will have to go, but if you think that suffering disqualifies people from having a voice, please remove the Psalms and many other books from your Bible.
I am like a mother of a child killed by a drunk driver who wants to prevent drinking and driving. Is she to be disqualified because of her suffering?
Should we shut the mouth of every black person ever suffered from racism because they are too emotional. Does God really say that the person who suffers must not be allowed to reveal the conditions of injustice.
Then please explain this….
“”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.”
What is going to neuter society?
As for the ‘fight for the wrong thing’, you’ve incorrectly labeled egals as fighting for leadership. Is there anything else you think is fighting for the wrong thing?
What I am gathering from you, and I may be wrong, is that you think women should be steered toward nurturing roles in society, home and church. And men should be steered toward leadership roles in society, home and church. But yet, it’s OK for women to teach men sometimes, and maybe even OK for women to be pastors. But you don’t really encourage it. Is this correct?
Typo.
I also want you to know that this does not in any way affect my scholarship any more than being make affects male scholarship.
Any more than being MALE affects male scholarship.
Do you realize how damaging it is to suppress the truth on these things. Because women do not speak out, other women are not aware of the danger. I had never heard of spousal abuse. I had no idea. I did not know what to do, and felt like I was the only woman in the world that this had happened to.
This is wrong. If I am shamed for telling my story then other women are discouraged from telling the truth about their home life.
Sue, that was an overstatement about my comment. I qualified this quite a bit, expressing my belief that your view might be motivated primarily because of your experiences, not simply your passion about your view. This was based on your explicit comments concerning this.
“Unlike others on this blog, it is because my feminine soul and my mothering was shut down by subordination that I protest.”
It is very hard to take this in another way. I really thought that it was somewhat of a concession on your part. Why else would you say this in such a way? You are against (i.e. “protest”) subordination because you were hurt by it.
Maybe you just meant that your experience has fueled your passions. Other characteristics, though, have made me think this as well. However, I certianly don’t want to act as if I am disqualifying you (or the voice of your experience). I appreciate it nonetheless.
We neuter society when we don’t bring up men as men and women as women which is, as I have said over and over, so much more than leadership.
I have limited the leadership talk only to the home and in the church. I even limited it in the church to that of a head pastor. Women, I believe can be leaders in many many areas. I believe they would be less desirable in other, generally speaking. Same thing with men. Men can be leaders in many areas, and would be less desirable in others.
I am sorry, it is just hard to say the same things over and over.
Perhaps that comment of mine was misunderstood. I meant that subordination destroyed the very thing that you, as a complementarian, are praising.
I meant that I am not upset because complementarianism kept me from being a pastor, or from having leadership, which is what I heard you saying.
I meant that in contrast to those egals who, you claim, want leadership, all I ever wanted was to be a mother. And subordination ruined this for me.
This is why women don’t want subordination, because they want to be women, as God created them.
Subordination can neuter women just as easily as anything else. This is what Christian women fought against in the 19th century. They fought for women to be the mothers they were intended to be.
BTW:
I rarely get involved in my blog comments at all, much less as much as I have over these last few posts. It goes to show you how important I personally believe this is.
Thanks for you all for hanging in their. I am very sorry if there has been some offense taken.
Michael,
I have not taken offense and I too believe this is important. Okay, I am upset that the subordination of women is as important to you as the equality of women is to me.
But I know you for a very tender person, and I do trust you. But somehow I come here to relive grief. This is a part of my grieving process. I am able to stay away from these arguments for more time than I used to.
The scholarship is real. I used to write about other things before with as much detail and care as I take in studying the history of interpretation.
I am working on a paper to set straight a criticism against some of the early male translators, at this moment. I do not restrict myself to promoting the female view, whatever that would be. I believe in honesty in scholarship above everything and I have sometimes been at odds with other egal exegetes.
Remember, whenever you preach the subordinate role of women, remember that it could be worse that alcohol, or cigarettes, or many other things that you would never introduce into the home. It is a powerful weapon that you give to men.
“We neuter society when we don’t bring up men as men and women as women which is, as I have said over and over, so much more than leadership.”
Well, I can agree with that for the plain words. 🙂
I’ve commented on this Blog today more than I have anywhere all week. I’m exhausted. It’s understandable that there would be some confusion. But this is of incredible importance to the body of Christ.
My estimation of you is raised by your patience.
many blessings….
Thanks Sue… It is nice and I do appreciate your time and spirit.
One thing though:
You said: “Okay, I am upset that the subordination of women is as important to you as the equality of women is to me.”
“Subordination of women.” I do wish that you would attempt to concede at least that this is not my foudation at all. There are only two areas that I have discussed the subordination of women and even then I qualified. I have also discussed the subordination of the role of men being of lesser import.
But most importantly, my passion, I pray you have seen, is for us to recognize, promote, and celebrate gender differences so that we might be able to more fully represent the image of God. My passsion for this is in no way based on some love for superiority or womens subordination. That is one application in a very limited area that is of less concern to me than others in this same area.
Anyway, please just try to understand me, even if you do not concede, as I do, that this is a true representation of Evangelical Complementarianism.
That would be one area of integrity that you are lacking right now and it keeps me from endearing myself to you in others. Represent the people AND issues well.
Sue,
“Remember, whenever you preach the subordinate role of women, remember that it could be worse that alcohol, or cigarettes, or many other things that you would never introduce into the home. It is a powerful weapon that you give to men.”
I agree. People justify about everything they do by twisting truth around their sin. That is why Paul spent much more time explaining to husbands how to love their wives than he did to women about submitting to their husbands.
TL,
Well, paitence is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, and knowledge is not. So in my book, that is a very kind comment!
God bless.
There are only two areas that I have discussed the subordination of women and even then I qualified.
The home and the church. Home is everything. Not just some little portion of life.
But most importantly, my passion, I pray you have seen, is for us to recognize, promote, and celebrate gender differences so that we might be able to more fully represent the image of God.
I cannot think of anything that I have ever said or hinted that does not celebrate the difference between men and women. But subordination closes down those in subordination. It does not celebrate them.
If a woman is afraid that displaying a difference from masculine traits will mean that her leadership is called into question, then she may suppress her femininity just because of this teaching. That is one way that this teaching suppresses femninity. And women want leadership so they can fulfill their God-given responsibilities and nurture those around them.
Having equal authority is the foundation of developing and fulfilling the differences, the characteristics of both sexes. It may have been that one thread of feminism rejected feminine traits because they were taught that females were not fit for leadership. But this is not true any more. Women know that they are fit for leadership and they want to be feminine leaders and thus fulfill and celebrate difference.
I concede that I do not understand you. I can pretty much guess that while you believe in the subordinate role of women you don’t practice it. But if you teach it, then you put it out there for other men who will practice it. That is the danger.
Also I do not feel that being egal in any way neuters me, and I do not feel at all comfortable with this suggestion. I have worked so hard to regain my femininity, to celebrate it. I never write as if I were a man. I always celebrate the fact that I write as a woman. This is a trade mark for me. Do you find me masculine, or neutered?
Michael,
I don’t know why difference is so important. There is not even one scripture in the Bible which teaches that men and women are to have different qualities. Men and women alike are to be strong, brave, mighty, nurturing, tender, sober, faithful, non-combattive, submissive to leaders.
I have searched the entire Bible and asked many people to defend this doctrine of difference from the Bible and I don’t remember one verse which supports it. Not even one.
I like the difference. I am rather glad that I am not like a man, but I cannot find this doctrine of different qualities in scripture.
Sue, no reason to go in circles here. All I was saying was that this statement misrepresented my arguments and, more importantly, my position:
“Okay, I am upset that the subordination of women is as important to you as the equality of women is to me.”
Try to have integrity in the way you represent people and truth.
“Okay, I am upset that the subordination of women is as important to you as the equality of women is to me.”
Right, sorry ’bout that. It seems that it is not accurate.
I hope that you too can see that egals do not neuter people. Perhaps some day you will be able to nuance that and offer egals integrity as well on this issue.
It is time to go – midnight for me and much too late for you. Thanks for the chat. Unfortunately there were a couple of misunderstandings since I wrote too fast with too few edits, but I think overall you have a lot of patience.
“Wives don’t need a leader.”
Said the Serpent to Eve, in front of Adam, as he handed her an apple. 😉
TL,
That’s where you don’t get it. Comps are about nurture and preserving the motherhood of the woman. That’s what this is all about. The fact that you don’t understand the difference between the comp view and the patriarchal view tells me that your lost on the subject. Let those who believe it define it.
Let’s be real honest here. There is no such thing as a neutral human. Hence, there is no such thing as a neutral role. There are male and female humans, so there are only male and female roles. So if we are going to make roles equal via sameness, then we are really choosing one of the gender roles as the standard for certain behavior and practice (at least in certain areas). So what we’re really talking about here is making the woman into a man, which is really what pop-feminism is all about. What we identify as “neutral” is simply the masculine “privileges” that come with the duties of that role, and are honored in our culture.
What we identify as “neutral” is simply the masculine “privileges” that come with the duties of that role, and are honored in our culture.
So single mothers ought to have these privileges also since they bear the same duties as a male for protecting and providing.
Comps are about nurture and preserving the motherhood of the woman.
And I experienced compism as the denial of the motherhood of the woman. It is whatever the male leader in the home makes it out to be and there is no referee.
As I said, there is a quite a significant blogosphere of women leaving compism in order to become responsible mothers to their children.
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).
I think that the communication disconnect here is that I don’t even understand this description in terms of my denomination.
I have no idea what a “head pastor” is. That does not exist in my denomination. One is either an ordained pastor or one is not. Period, end of story.
And I have no idea what “carry the primary responsibility for these men of discipleship, leadership, reproving, exhorting and instructing” means. In my denomination, the pastor is the Chair of the Church Council; I do not view chairmanship as being an autocrat and neither do my male colleagues.
Yes, I have “primary” responsibility for conducting reproof and there have been occasions when that has been necessary. But if you are going to tell me that God doesn’t want me telling a man that his adultery is sinful or that his spreading of malicious information about another person is sinful, then what is the point of having an objective standard of behavior in the first place?
Perhaps the major disconnect between egalitarian denominations and complimentarian denominations is the idea of how an organization should be run? You model seems authoritarian and I do not think an authoritarian form of governance is particularly godly.
And my mind boggles at the idea of any pastor micro-managing all these areas of life for his or her parishioners. This seems like “helicopter pastoring”.
TL,
I think these comments here not only misrepresent the complementarian position, but contradict what Michael has repeatedly said.
“Can you cite any Scriptures that say women need to be lead about and have decisions made for them.”
Women are very much influencers 😉 The comp position is not about having decisions made for them or not contributing to the decision making process. Leadership is about taking responsibility and at the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere. And what you say here is important in that task for the husband and the pastor.
“Perhaps this is true when people think of leadership as all about authority and control. But Jesus gave us the example in Matt. 20 that true leadership is about serving and service.”
“But nurturing is something husbands are to do as well. Nurturing is caring for, protecting, providing for, feeding, and more.”
Yes, I agree – Ephesians 5:25-28; I Peter 5:2-3
And with these comments,
“What is so scary about a woman loving to teach the Bible and doing it well, maybe even better than some men? What is so scary about a woman preaching and being really good at it.”
“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.”
Have you even listened to what Michael said? Go back at look at those links I posted in 299. That is only a speck compared to what is out there.
Here is a thought, and primarily for TL, Eric and Pam
I wonder if we are confusing gifts with office. There have many comments indicating that if one is gifted they should use those gifts freely. However, the comp position does not deny this. Pastoring and teaching are gifts, not offices. If one is gifted to do this they should do this. But the offices of overseer/bishop/presbyter/elder is reserved for men because this is the office that governs the church. In this sense, not because of gifts, but because of headship, which is why authority is tied in to the creative order (1 Timothy 2, 1 Cor 11). It’s why I believe that women can be pastors and fulfill their gift of pastoring but subjected to the order of the office. Same with the home. In a sense, the husband holds an office.
Now if you say that neither the church nor the home need a head, that is a different story.
Hodge wrote:
The fact that you don’t understand the difference between the comp view and the patriarchal view tells me that your lost on the subject. Let those who believe it define it.
Let’s be real honest here. There is no such thing as a neutral human. Hence, there is no such thing as a neutral role. There are male and female humans, so there are only male and female roles.
Lisa Robinson wrote:
I wonder if we are confusing gifts with office. There have many comments indicating that if one is gifted they should use those gifts freely. However, the comp position does not deny this. Pastoring and teaching are gifts, not offices. If one is gifted to do this they should do this. But the offices of overseer/bishop/presbyter/elder is reserved for men because this is the office that governs the church. In this sense, not because of gifts, but because of headship, which is why authority is tied in to the creative order (1 Timothy 2, 1 Cor 11). It’s why I believe that women can be pastors and fulfill their gift of pastoring but subjected to the order of the office. Same with the home. In a sense, the husband holds an office.
Now if you say that neither the church nor the home need a head, that is a different story.
I don’t think either side accepts the other side’s (re)definitions or categorizations. And because of that, though we may get close to each other on some things even to the point of total agreement, both sides are still at an impasse with each other.
Re: the offices & charismata in the church, including those of apostle, prophet, pastor, evangelist, teacher, elder, overseer, deacon, tongues, prophecy, healing, administration, helps, etc., I don’t think egals think “male” or “female” have or should have anything to do with roles, positions, leadership, source, headship, superordination, subordination, gifts, functions, positions, abilities, etc.
(cont’d)
(Repeated from the previous post) Hodge wrote:
The fact that you don’t understand the difference between the comp view and the patriarchal view tells me that your lost on the subject. Let those who believe it define it.
And a complementarianism that allows men to have and do all these things, but restricts a woman re: some of these things – either forbidding her to hold or do some or all of them, or requiring that there be a male “head” over her with respect to some of them – IS a form of patriarchalism.
I.e., there is NO “difference between the comp view and the patriarchal view” if the comp view does this. The so-called “comp” view is just a softer or less restrictive form of patriarchalism, but it IS patriarchalism. I supplied the dictionary definitions many posts ago. My dictionary hasn’t changed.
Leadership is about taking responsibility and at the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere.
If you mean that the buck stops with the husband and not with the wife, this is against the law. The buck stops with both parents. Both parents are legally responsible for the children. If something goes wrong, the mother is not exempt from responsibility. Nor is she exempt before God. “The buck stops here” teaches women that they do not have FULL responsibility, but, in fact, they do.
If a mother knows of something illegal happening and does not stop it, then she is also liable. Likewise in the lesser things, if she abdicates her full responsibility in little things, she is also responsible. Gender-based authority is at odds with doing what is right regardless of the gender of the decision-maker.
I wonder if we are confusing gifts with office.
I don’t know what your mental model of church is here. I am ordained a Presbyter in my denomination. All Presbyters in my denomination – male and female – are under the denomination’s discipline which includes major points of doctrine (but we are not a confessional denomination) and the obligations of presbyters, deacons, lay leaders, church councils and members. These disciples are laid out in a document called The Constitutional Practice and Discipline of The Methodist Church (in Great Britain, not to be confused with the UMC). The disciplines are determined by Conference which meets annually and is comprised of elected lay and ordained men and women.
No male Presbyter has the option of taking Church authority upon himself. No female Presbyter has the option of taking Church authority upon herself. Both male and female Presbyters are subject to the discipline of conference. It is their responsibility to apply this discipline to their congregations (who are subject to corporate, congregational discipline) and to members (who are subject to the discipline of members).
Now, as I understand it, you would say that it’s illegitimate for me, as a female Presbyter, to apply the discipline of the Church to a male member of the Church? If your answer is “yes”, then I ask why there is an objective standard in the first place. Can we not assume that, having promised to accept the disciplines of the Church in becoming a member, that this member would expect anyone “in authority” to apply that discipline to him?
If your answer is that may apply this discipline because it has been decided corporately rather than by spiritually-inappropriate female me, my answer is that I think I probably don’t agree with your model of church. Because I don’t think that any individual male Presbyter ought to be determining disciplinary standards for a congregation or for a denomination.
Sue,
I think I can fairly say, from the numerous posts I’ve read where you describe your relationship, that you DID NOT experience a complementarian relationship. Your situation sounds like patriarchal abuse, where the man overshadows the woman. I realize that this was an awful experience for you, but please note that any comp you speak with is not going to think that you were in a similar relationship to what they are describing.
Eric,
“And a complementarianism that allows men to have and do all these things, but restricts a woman re: some of these things – either forbidding her to hold or do some or all of them, or requiring that there be a male “head” over her with respect to some of them – IS a form of patriarchalism.
I.e., there is NO “difference between the comp view and the patriarchal view” if the comp view does this. The so-called “comp” view is just a softer or less restrictive form of patriarchalism, but it IS patriarchalism. I supplied the dictionary definitions many posts ago. My dictionary hasn’t changed.”
Eric, I didn’t say anything before, but getting a definition of patriarchy from Websters is like letting Websters define the word man. Patriarchy has specific connotations in religious circles. It sees the woman as less of a human in ability, worth, etc.
Comp sees the woman as a full human in ability, worth, intelligence, etc.; but wasting the specific vehicle she has been given to display that humanity by attempting to display it as though she were a man. It has nothing to do with restricting because she is not good enough. It has everything to do with telling her to take up the divinely gifted vehicle through which her humanity is expressed (i.e. motherhood instead of fatherhood).
So there is a vast chasm of a difference between patriarchy, which exists primarily for the man, and comp that exists for God, the man, the woman, children and community/family. One is tyrannical and one seeks the best for the other. You’re not going to get that from Websters.
Pam, I was meaning to ask if you were Methodist and lo and behold, you answered it for me. To be honest, I think the Methodist model gives some legitimacy for women pastors simply because of the structure you described. I do want to do some more research on it and will as we have been discussing this in my church history class that is primarily focused on American denominational and evangelical development. So at this point, I would say I don’t know. You do raise some good points.
I think I can fairly say, from the numerous posts I’ve read where you describe your relationship, that you DID NOT experience a complementarian relationship. Your situation sounds like patriarchal abuse, where the man overshadows the woman
But you need to understand that the teaching and the framework were complementarian. This is one of the possible results of comp teaching. The internet is full of women like me, decoupling and trying to restore basic health. There is a site that collects money to help other women leave.
I don’t think you understand that because of pressure to not talk about it, like I have experienced here, that this is a relatively common problem.
Now, I admit that anyone can abuse anyone, man or women, egal or comp. But this kind of abuse in the name of God is a particularly cruel and destructive kind of thing. You cannot prevent it from happening. You teach the comp line and leave women to fend for themselves. You place an unbearable burden on women, while ensuring that you yourself live in a democracy, have the opportunity to vote, to change jobs, to change churches. You are not bound by a lifelong vow to hell itself, but you see no problem with putting women at risk. It is the sheer lack of empathy for a fellow human being.
How I feel sometimes, is that we are like a fish. The suffering is just shrugged off because people think that fish don’t have as intense feelings of pain as a person does. I am not against fishing per se, but I find it hard to believe that it causes no pain to a fish to be caught by a hook.
You see that some women are going to dangle by this hook and you carry on with your beliefs as if some of us are just write-offs. The comp doctrine will never fit us again. Are we then outside the grace of God?
We will never come back to the comp fold, and many will never darken the door of a church again. Their testimony will not be heard, and the cycle will continue.
I won’t bore you by mentioning the worthy comp scholars in this neck of the woods, but I attended a mainstream church full of mostly normal people who simple taught a dangerous doctrine and did not set up a safe house for those for whom it did not work out.
Hodge: “Sue,
I think I can fairly say, from the numerous posts I’ve read where you describe your relationship…”
It would be helpful, although perhaps unobtainable, to hear from the other side. As currently stands, it’s just one-sided reporting.
Given how Sue (mis)represents complementarianism or Biblical patriarchy, I, for one, would find it immensely helpful to hear the other side’s perspective.
TU..AD,
What does it matter? Are you saying that these things never happen.
If you want to deny something, then deny spousal abuse in general. Deny that it happens.
But I agree that both men and women, comp and egal are abused. And I would never give one spouse authority over the other. I would never say, “Okay, let’s solve this by telling one of you that the other person has decision-making power for the next 50 years.”
Hodge:
While that may be true re: some discussions of patriarchalism – i.e., it has specific meanings within a religious discussion – my original (IIRC) reason for bringing up the dictionary definitions was to support the idea that CBMW had in some ways misappropriated the term “complementarian” for themselves, or perhaps had even outright invented it, primarily to give a different impression about their kind of patriarchalism to their opponents or to those who would cringe at the term “patriarchalism.” A kinder, gentler patriarchalism, if you will. Compassionate patriarchalism. Etc.
But a theological or ecclesiological organization which lets its ultimate authority reside or rest in males only, even if lower positions can be held by females to “complement” the males’ strengths, gifts, etc., is a hierarchically patriarchal organization. They can call themselves “complementarian,” but they’re still patriarchal. A rose by any other name, etc., etc.
I see no problem with using Random House to define the terms. But I do think it’s a problem when complementarians like CBMW and those who refer to themselves as such, vis-a-vis egalitarianism, claim that theirs is not a form, however hard or soft, of patriarchalism. Because it is. One cannot make sour milk cream and cream sour milk simply by calling sour milk “cream” and cream “sour milk.” Groups can define some things for themselves, but it confounds language when they call black white and white black simply because that’s what they want to do.
I do want to do some more research on it and will as we have been discussing this in my church history class that is primarily focused on American denominational and evangelical development. So at this point, I would say I don’t know. You do raise some good points.
Thank you for your honesty and thoughtfulness.
I do think that there is an underlying issue here and it’s the issue of hierarchy. I would be totally opposed to a church structure where any one person – male or female – either had total responsibility for church discipline or had an ultimate veto or ultimate ability to dictate (bad word but the only one which springs to mind at the moment). Leaving women out of the equation entirely, I am totally opposed to the kinds of church systems where some men are deemed to “give covering” to other men.
My foundational objection is to the idea of “the buck has to stop somewhere”. I have decades of experience that tell me that a more mutual system of marriage and church works just fine when individuals practice mutual submission.
Just as an aside, within British Methodism, a person who thinks they are called to ministry doesn’t just go off to seminary and then apply to a church. You have to be accepted by the denomination before you even begin to study; the denomination pays your education but a person is told what theology college (seminary) to attend and a person is told what specialty they are going to study for. I studied a specialty I would not have chosen and went to a college I didn’t really want to attend. Your first appointment is made by the church and you don’t really have the ability to say no (unless you think you’d be so completely miserable that you’re willing to wait another year for your first appointment). My bet is that our women ministers (as well as our men ministers, of course) have probably accepted more discipline than male ministers in congregational systems who imply that we are self-centered and lack…
Actually, now that I think about it without wading through nearly 400 comments, I first brought up the Random House definitions because I had problems with CMP’s spectrum which placed egalitarianism opposite patriarchalism instead of midway between patriarchalism and matriarchalism, per standard definitions for the terms.
And since we are using most of the words in our posts here according to standard dictionary definitions of those words – whether “essential” or “characteristic” or “egalitarian,” etc. – it eludes me why we have to give a special dispensation to complementarians who want to say that they are not in any way shape or form patriarchalists such as to let them define who they are by using words in ways that defy the dictionary definitions of those words.
Pam, thanks. I would like to highlight your point here
“I would be totally opposed to a church structure where any one person – male or female – either had total responsibility for church discipline or had an ultimate veto or ultimate ability to dictate.”
The comp position does not place the weight of decision on one person. As I mentioned in the other thread (Question for Egalitarians), the bishop/overseer/elder should meet the qualifications of as outline in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Moreover, I do not believe the prescription is for one person to be in charge of everything but for leadership to rest in a plurality of elders.
And as you point out, affirmation of the elder by the community is a very important part of the process. Otherwise, it would be a dictatorship and that is not what the comp position is promoting.
Lisa,
I am in agreement with you and Pam when you say it should not be a matter of one person acting in a position of absolute authority. The church model presented in the Bible does not automatically grant someone monarch status strictly because they are male. Ideally, all church leadership should have a democratic process in place where there is egress if things are not being run properly, or if someone is overstepping their authority.
However, we know in the real world, people being what they are, this does not always play out that way. In fact, in many smaller churches, the pastor is it. Even in larger churches this can come into play when leadership doesn’t lead by example but by authority.
For example, my husband and I stopped going to a church we really liked in every way, when we found out that in order too be accepted as members, we were expected to sign a pledge (patterned on the one from Rick Warren’s church) where we could not question the pastor or the elders, or vote against them. Needless to say we knew it was not biblical to ask that of members, so after much consultation with the pastor and the elders we decided to move on.
Our church now is small, but run much more democratically. Men and women alike are asked to do such ‘womanly’ things as keep the babies in the nursery and do Children’s Church. Youth groups are commonly taught by both men and women. Our pastor who is very Bible based, (think preaching verse by verse), teaches that we all need to develop a servant’s heart, not patterned upon roles, but out of mutual love for Christ and desiring to serve as He served.
Under this model, I see none of the heirarchy here I saw in the other church, who also prided itself on being complementarian, that is until it came to authority.
Eric,
According to the logic you’re using I could argue that both atheists and Christians agree that man is a human animal. Hence, Christians are essentially atheists.
The little problem is that specifics define the term, not generalities. Yes, both patriarchy and complementarianism place the man as head of the family, domestic or ecclesiastical. That’s pretty much where the similarities end. Egalitarians and matriarchy agree that man is not to be in the leadership role as well. Does that mean you agree now that egal and matriarchal feminism are the same? Of course you don’t, because the distinctions separate the two, not the similarities. Whatever CBMW did or does is not relevant to the average comp, but I highly doubt the situation is as it is presented by conspiratorial egals. I’m sure there is some dark room where they all met and said, “Hey let’s redefine this in order to make it more palatable.” Please, this is nonsense. I guess you, as an evangelical/emerging/etc. are a fundy because you have roots in and similar beliefs to fundamentalists. We can do this all day. It’s bad logic, and it simply amounts to the genetic fallacy, and further, an ad hominem. Websters doesn’t get to define religious terminology. They define generics, not specifics, and we are certainly not bound to their generic definitions. I would find a different line of argumentation here.
Sue,
Are you familar with the case of a prostitute falsely accusing the Duke lacrosse team of rape? One would not know that it’s a false accusation if only the alleged victim was allowed to say anything.
The general point being that it’s helpful to have as complete a perspective as possible on a situation. That’s not to say that what happened in your situation did not happen as you describe it; it’s merely to say that we have not heard what your former husband says.
Are you familar with the case of a prostitute falsely accusing the Duke lacrosse team of rape? One would not know that it’s a false accusation if only the alleged victim was allowed to say anything.
The general point being that it’s helpful to have as complete a perspective as possible on a situation. That’s not to say that what happened in your situation did not happen as you describe it; it’s merely to say that we have not heard what your former husband says.
“Interesting response”.
Not: “Well, if you husband was abusing you, as a complimentarian (or whatever), I utterly condemn such behavior.”
But rather: “You might be lying, and the possibility that you might be lying precludes me having an opinion on whether or not spousal abuse is wrong.”
Can I say that this thread is filled with “little tidbits” like this from a number of people that make me think there is less respect for women among many in your community than I believe is godly. “Some of your best friends might be women” but I, for one, would not turn to many of you in a crisis.
Sue has pointed out that the “process of doing relationships” is fundamentally flawed in complimentarianism. All the responses here have made it clear that complimentarianism’s only recourse is “our process works if it is carried out in the way that it is meant to be carried out”. Women or men who are abused by their spouses in egalitarianism DO have a recourse to the belief that all abuse is wrong, period, end of story.
Hodge:
Go right ahead. Use your perception of my logic any way you wish. Find a different line of argumentation if it works for you. Call Christians atheists and atheists Christians. Whatever. It’s a free country.
I have nothing new or different or additional to say about the matter than what I’ve already said about it. That’s my position on the terms and meanings of the terms.
The first rule of Complementarianism is that you do not talk about Complementarianism.
The second rule of Complementarianism is that you do not talk about Complementarianism.
Mischief. Mayhem. Soap.
I am Jack’s laissez faire attitude.
I have not been able to keep up on the responses today. However, I have seen a couple.
One thing that seems to be (for some unknown reason) assumed is that complementarians think that women or ANYONE who is under abusive leadership should submit. That is simply not the case and continues to equate complementarianism with a radical form of partriachalism (not even normative patriarchalism). You can argue against any position so long as you are intent on creating strawmen and false stereotypes, but it does not help anything.
I have continually attempted to define what is meant and what the main issues are and so many of you go back to the same old false descriptions. Can good responsible conversations really take place here?
“but I highly doubt the situation is as it is presented by conspiratorial egals. I’m sure there is some dark room where they all met and said, “Hey let’s redefine this in order to make it more palatable.” Please, this is nonsense.”
Actually, it was online discussion in a private yahoo list. I’m not privy to their conversations elsewhere. And they did in fact desire to come up with a more palatable name than patriarchalism. I was there listening in (so to speak) on the conversations. I don’t know their motivations. There were a few others who now consider themselves egals who are aware of this. You obviously don’t have to believe me. But IMO it is a pertinent point of truth.
“One thing that seems to be (for some unknown reason) assumed is that complementarians think that women or ANYONE who is under abusive leadership should submit. That is simply not the case and continues to equate complementarianism with a radical form of partriachalism (not even normative patriarchalism).”
First, I think I confused the issue on that a few times. Because I was around and actually saw a teeny bit of the beginnings of complementarianism, I do sometimes have difficulty separating that with the form it has taken with people who identify with the concept of complementarity more than they do the foundations of the movement. I apologize for my part in that. And am working on understanding the softer form of complementarity complementarianism.
But the patriarchalism thing….. Normative patriarchalism is quite harsh. I lived it through the Shepherding Movement. I am still on private lists and aware of their doctrines. Main stream patriarchalism is radical, period. I don’t even think there is a soft patriarchalism except for the incomplete face that is put on for observers. Anything less than the norm get’s moved over into the realm of complementarianism which IMO has one side that leans toward the heavy hierarchies of patriarchalism and the other side that leans toward the mutualities of Christian egalitariansim.
Hope that helps some….