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"
PamBG,
It’s not surprising that you badly miss the point.
The point is that all we have is Sue’s description of what happened in her marriage. We don’t have her former husband’s account. I merely said that it would be helpful to have his perspective as well.
Sue then turns this observation into a general statement about abuse and denying abuse. So then I simply make a general statement about false accusations and whether folks will deny that false accusations are made.
Pam,
I haven’t commented on these threads for some time now but I have been following the conversations on them.
You commented that, “Sue has pointed out that the “process of doing relationships” is fundamentally flawed in complimentarianism.”
Until I am convinced that complimentarianism is not what the Bible teaches in several places regarding issues in the home and in the church, there is no way I can agree with that statement.
However, I will also have to say that there is no way I can agree with the way many men treat their wives or by the high handed authority in some church situations. They are in no way the response that we should expect from Christian leaders and husbands. Men who handle authority this way in the church or treat their wives the way many men do, are totally going against the Biblical instructions for them.
I was just told about an incident in a church that I was once a member of where a woman was recently kicked out of the church because she had told the pastor that she had, “no confidence in the elders.” For that she she was accused of, “sinning against the elder board,” and told she could no longer attend there.
And I have a relative that claims to be a Christian but is extremely
patriarchal–the way he treats his wife is terrible. She is less then a second class citizen in his book.
So I know that there are problems–sometimes very severe ones. But what is the solution? To eliminate part of the teachings of the Bible surely is not the proper answer. The only answer that I can see is for both men and women to start behaving in a Christ like way and start obeying their part of the instructions God has given us. Only then we will have no further problems in this area.
Perhaps encouraging the subordinate role of women should be put on the back burner until those who have been hurt are helped out, men or women. Why put more talk into making sure women function in the subordinate role than in keeping people safe.
Cherylu,
start obeying their part of the instructions God has given us
In an abusive situation, this increases the abuse. If a spouse either way, gives in in any way at all to the controlling attitude of the other, then that control will increase. That is just how it is.
I do know of women who lived with abuse all their lives and then they died.
Would it not be helpful if in every discussion of complimentarianism the woman AND the man’s role were equally emphasized and it was taught how those roles are to be played out? It seems to me in almost all conversations or teachings on complimentarianism that I have heard, the emphasis is on the man being the leader in the church and in the home and the woman not teaching in the church and being submissive in the home. The emphasis seems most of the time to be on the fact that women are excluded from certain areas. Wouldn’t a lot of the problems being discussed here simply go away–assuming they were obeyed–if church leadership was taught the qualifications given for it in Scriputre and if they were always held accountable to those standards? And wouldn’t it help tremendously in marriage situations if the man was told that he was to, “Love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her”? And another real gem, husbands are to “live in an understanding way” with their wives! If these things were taught more consistently and if men were held accountable to obeying these instructions, it seems to me there would not be the abuse there is today.
Sue,
“Perhaps encouraging the subordinate role of women should be put on the back burner until those who have been hurt are helped out, men or women. Why put more talk into making sure women function in the subordinate role than in keeping people safe.”
This is the same type of argument that Brian McLaren makes concerning the issue of homosexuality and the church. Because, as many see it, the church does not handle it well, we should call a moratorium on all discussion and prohibitions against homosexuals in the church.
Would you agree with this as well?
Sue,
Did you notice that I said, “If BOTH men and women” were to start obeying these instructions? I did not say that the solution is just for the woman to obey her share of them.
It’s not surprising that you badly miss the point.
The point is that all we have is Sue’s description of what happened in her marriage. We don’t have her former husband’s account. I merely said that it would be helpful to have his perspective as well.
Sue is not asking us to arbitrate between her and her husband. She is asking for an explanation of what the mechanism is in complimentarianism whereby a woman can find safety from her husband.
The point you are badly missing is that, for those of us who think that complimentarianism looks like male-headship gone politically correct, where is the safety mechanism in the concept of “the buck stops with me” supposing (think of one of those math “Suppose” signs) that “me” is the person engaging in the abuse?
Those of us who grew up in male headship have plenty experience of badly beat-up wives who were inexplicably “lying” about their “very Christian” husbands abusing them. So attitude will raise red flags. Women are told that the male elders will deal with their husbands if they are abusive, but the elders don’t.
I was just told about an incident in a church that I was once a member of where a woman was recently kicked out of the church because she had told the pastor that she had, “no confidence in the elders.” For that she she was accused of, “sinning against the elder board,” and told she could no longer attend there.
Certainly consistent of my experience in male-headship long ago.
“And wouldn’t it help tremendously in marriage situations if the man was told that he was to, “Love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her”? And another real gem, husbands are to “live in an understanding way” with their wives! If these things were taught more consistently and if men were held accountable to obeying these instructions, it seems to me there would not be the abuse there is today.”
Cheryl, I agree. All we see is the woman being asked to submit but overlook what the husband is ask to do – the giving up of himself for the care of his wife. Quite frankly, I don’t know which is considered the more sacrificial but definitely needs to be considered in context of Paul’s commandment to be filled with the spirit (vs. 18) and mutual submission to each other (vs. 21).
The same goes for church leadership. They are actually servants (1 Peter 5:2-3)
Amen Cheryl,
Especially since the heart of complementarianism is not about submission or leadership.
“She is asking for an explanation of what the mechanism is in complimentarianism whereby a woman can find safety from her husband.”
Well, from this complementarian, the wife does NOT put up with abuse. While it is not always that simple, we need to teach, preach, exhort, and instruct that submission does not mean that one has to be in an abusive situation. Then you have some other complementarian male come beat the tar out of the guy 🙂
“Especially since the heart of complementarianism is not about submission or leadership.”
This is also what some of us on the egalitarian thread were trying to point out in our concept of raising Godly children.
The Pharisees saw an opportunity to accuse Jesus if He would heal the man on the Sabbath, and they raised the question, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?” Matthew12:10.
He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?” Matthew 12:11. He then asked them if they didn’t think a man was worth at least as much as some dumb lost sheep?
Jesus didn’t argue The Law with them there scholars. Jesus understood the Pharisees had knowledege of The Law but didn’t have the sense that God gave a goose! This has been sliced and diced so many ways when I didn’t think it could be sliced and diced anymore. It’s about to get tissue paper thin making it harder and harder to slice and dice. It’s turning into “As Seen on TV” infomercial! I can’t wait to get my steak knives and mini slicer/dicer for the smaller debates!
If anyone is looking for me, I’ll be with Jesus relaxing in a boat on the other side of the lake. Don’t even think about it!
“She is asking for an explanation of what the mechanism is in complimentarianism whereby a woman can find safety from her husband.”
Well, from this complementarian, the wife does NOT put up with abuse. While it is not always that simple, we need to teach, preach, exhort, and instruct that submission does not mean that one has to be in an abusive situation. Then you have some other complementarian male come beat the tar out of the guy 🙂
Michael, you lost my heart totally at post 407.
If a woman in my church comes to me terrified out of her wits, my first job is to say “Let’s find you a safe place to be away from your husband”.
My first job is NOT to say “Well, this will make a very interesting arbitration case for the church. At this point, until we’ve heard a lot of evidence from both sides, who is to know if you are telling the truth or not?”
Nor is my first job to judge the husband as guilty and go ’round and admonish him, excommunicate him or punch him in the face.
My first job is to offer the woman a safe place and I don’t have to judge anyone in order to do that. She might not accept that offer. A lot of abused women need to pluck up courage to leave their husbands. But she will know that her physical safety is my first priority and the my first priority is not to treat her situation as an intellectual exercise for our congregation’s Church court.
So you teach that the man must not abuse the woman. But you don’t think that your first priority is to get the woman to safety. I don’t want to be a member of a community run in that way.
Pam,
How did I lose your heart? Because I said that because there are abuses this does not mean we forget about searching for the truth?
And I agree completely with getting the woman out of this situation. What did I say that would make you think otherwise?
“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.”
I’m sorry, TL, it’s not that I think that you’re making it up. It’s just that I don’t trust the disposition or interpretive skills of just anyone. I highly doubt someone was just trying to advertise patriarchy differently. It is far more the case that many comps have a different view of familial hierarchy than patriarchy and therefore wanted a different name for it—i.e., a name that described it more accurately. If you’re privy to the discussion, and have it, then I would like it. Otherwise, it’s a hearsay accusation without evidence.
Eric,
Hence the fundamentalist dogmatism of egalitarianism comes out. You don’t want people to define their systems as they are accurately distinguished from more monstrous ideas because you want to equate them. That is a sad commentary on our times and the lack of ability to address views as they are stated, My Friend.
In any case, it is the person who holds the belief who can tell you what he believes. And it is the responsibility of the mature listener to attempt to understand rather than pigeon-hold a view with a definitional ad hominem.
Hodge:
*sigh*
EricW is from Mars, Hodge is from Venus.
I’m off to rescue Dejah Thoris. I hope you find Duare.
Did you notice that I said, “If BOTH men and women” were to start obeying these instructions? I did not say that the solution is just for the woman to obey her share of them.
I noticed. How are you going to enforce this. Of course, if there was no sin in the world, then this would not be a problem. I don’t find this kind of thing helpful.
Nor do I find it helpful that a complementarian guy offers to beat someone up. That is actually disgusting to me. This is the problem. Complementarians really despise the guy in this situation because it shows how bad their system is. This attitude is all wrong. Both parties need to be helped but the contact between the two must end completely, and they should be helped by two completely different groups of people so there is no second hand information going back and forth.
The process is completely different from Michael Patton signing up for boxing lessons. LOL.
First, the wife must realize that she is entitled to make decisions for herself. Often the abuse is psychological and not necessarily physical. It is complex. Usually a mix of things keeps the wife silent until after she has arranged to leave by herself.
The wife has to come to grips with being a single mother, dealing with custody, where to live, how to raise the kids. etc. etc. She has to deal with the shame of divorce and all the nasty things that people say, like “oh, I guess you don’t have much self esteem” and, ” why did you put up with it” and “you are just another wimpy codependent”
Believe me, this is endless. A huge psychological shift must take place. The wife has to completely divest herself of all notion of male leadership and take the reins of her own life. She has to get herself out.
PamBG,
It’s not surprising that you not only badly miss the original point, but that you wish to compound your error by persisting in missing the original point.
So sad.
I’m still waiting on my “As Seen on TV” scripture slice n dice kit and the steak knives I was promised too. Maybe I’ll cancel my order and just wait until Walgreen’s carries it and can avoid the shipping and handling. But then I won’t get my steak knives or mini slicer. What to do, what to do? Sigh……..
Michael: How did I lose your heart? Because I said that because there are abuses this does not mean we forget about searching for the truth?
Maybe we’re not reading things in the same way. This is one of those conversations that gets complicated on the internet and is almost too difficult to explain. I read Sue’s post as a response to the statement “We should not automatically take the woman’s side if she accuses her husband of abuse because she may be lying.” I read her response to be “Act first to protect the woman, worry about discussing things later.” I read your response as “No, we should discuss the matter first and not take action”. My point is that taking action to protect a woman doesn’t mean we need to automatically judge the husband as guilty but her safety should come first.
Truth Unites: It’s not surprising that you not only badly miss the original point, but that you wish to compound your error by persisting in missing the original point. So sad.
This is a personal remark directed at me, not a substantive point. I discuss substantive points.
I am only an example. It doesn’t matter at all what my story is except that this kind of thing happens. And somehow, most of what I read is about male and female differences, but this is not discussed in any way that is useful if there are problems in a marriage.
To simply say men are better at this, and women at that, will simply mean that whoever the stronger and more abusive person in the marriage is, that person will box the other person into a corner or the attic, as you say Michael, in the name of God. Then what? The person boxed in, often rejects Christianity altogether because this is all it means to them. This kind of teaching of difference will exacerbate any marriage that had real problems.
There is some work done by a few psychologists which scientifically test the differences and run long term studies. John Gottman. But he is adamant that, in spite of all the differences, and the way they work out, there must be power sharing for there to be intimacy. It cannot be up to the husband to decide if he shares no power, or most of the power, or all of it.
In fact, appearances can be very deceitful, because abusive spouses often make sure that the public view is quite opposite to the reality.
I think one of Gotmann’s (sp?) points is that men are more emotional. They cannot process information in an emotionally charged conversation as easily as women, so women need to understand this weakness, and display patience and respect and so on for the husband to be able to listen.
This is not about “women respect your husband as leader” This is about women learning that husbands have a weakness in the area of language processing and women have to take this into account in order to have a conversation.
I love communicating over the Net…get to meet so many people that otherwise you’d never get to meet. But guys…and gals, you have to know that since it’s all in print and since you can’t see body language or facial expressions or hear inflections in the voice, you can read the text several different ways…from sincere to not so sincere and everything in between. It’s becoming impossible to back track and sort thru all the comments and re explain. It’s an Etch A Sketch. Time to pick it up and give it a good shake and start over…anew!
If you were writing a novel, you’d have the liberty to be graphic and so expressive……”and just at that moment, her eyes filled with tears but they were tears of joy as she ran down the stairs nearly tripping over her own feet because her black mascara was running in her eyes”…and so on and so on. We could all imagine what everyone is trying to express. You could have a picture now and then to make it even more obvious and what about the narrator of the story to help explain the mood, to set the tone? But this isn’t a story. It’s comments and none of us have those advanatges and so we can assume the worse of our Christian brothers and sisters or….or the best!
Somewhere is Proverbs, I’m pretty sure it says,”Clean your Etch A Sketch”!
From an egal perspective, if you can override the will of another and they must obey, they are your servants. You may be a benevolent master, this is what is supposed to be the case with kids, or a harsh master, but they are your servants. And ANY master will make mistakes and sin, have blind spots, etc.
This is why the terms of husband having the final say, a trump card, 51% of the vote or similar terms sound so dangerous and unhelful to egals. This is where the rubber meets the road in the home in the egal/non-egal debate. As an egal, I throw away any supposed trump card I have as I am not Jesus, God is still working on me.
I can agree that my wife is different than me, this is obvious. She has different aspirations than me, some coincide and some do not. I believe the genders complement each other but there is NO gender hierarchy. She may defer to me in any specific circumstance or I may defer to her; do not the non-egals see that just the fact of having the final decision distorts the process of decision making?
mbaker, “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.”
You’ve just described our complementarian church. It seems that many egals here characterize comp churches in such a ridiculously negative light. Of course there will be comp churches which are more extreme, and egal churches with problems related to roles as well. Some here continues to assume the worst about complementerianism, and aren’t really hearing us on so many points.
Sue, and other egals,
My husband used to be entirely patriarchal and verbally abusive. We attend a comp church (such as described above by mbaker). I can tell you one thing for sure: my husband NEVER heard any teaching at our church which would lead him to think that his behavior and treatment of me was OK. In fact, he was hearing exactly the opposite….Sunday after Sunday! So his sinful behavior was in no way influenced by the complementarian, biblically faithful, position of our church.
I’m so tired of those in this discussion who constantly insist that abusive husbands who attend complementarian churches are being given license for their abusive, domineering ways. In most comp churches that simply is NOT the case. Last time our pastor read a passage about the submission of wives he made a big point of emphasizing mutual submission, and there was no license there for a husband to be authoritarian.
Please stop assuming that comp churches are to blame for the abuse of church-going women! I assure you that the opposite is true in our church and most others. It often seems like you are thinking…
Susan,
Thank you for sharing this. I understand.
I have tried to make clear many times that abuse can happen to anyone regardless of teaching. It can happen in egal churches. But in complementarian churches the teaching associates the submission of the wife with God’s will in our lives.
In our church it was not mutual submission but final decision-making that was preached, and although the husband may know he is doing something very wrong, he can always say it is because the wife does not submit that he has lost control.
The teaching in the church implied that it was the wife’s fault that things were the way they were, if she did not obey. So of course, it was made out that it was all my fault.
In any case, the wife, since she is going to end up on her own, must be prepared to be the provider and protector, and the leader of the family.
It seems what you hung onto was the teaching of mutual submission, lacking in our church. If mutual submission is taught, this looks more like an egal doctrine and at least gives the wife something to hang onto, that it was the responsibility of BOTH of you to submit, so it was not all your fault.
What I cannot understand is why there is not a whole lot of attention given to what makes men and women suffer so much, rather than all this “men this and women that” teaching which really doesn’t help.
What do you think would be helpful?
Eric,
Lucky for us, the laws of logic are universally applied in every possible world. May the force be with you. 😉
And may the schwarz be with you!
“What I cannot understand is why there is not a whole lot of attention given to what makes men and women suffer so much, rather than all this “men this and women that” teaching which really doesn’t help.
What do you think would be helpful?”
Good thoughts as always, Sue.
Understanding that God gives strengths to serve those less strong, would be helpful. The sin in the world gravitated to an attitude of the strong will dominate the weaker instead. This I suspect is at the heart of many of the problems in relationships.
Understanding that God gives strengths to serve those less strong, would be helpful. The sin in the world gravitated to an attitude of the strong will dominate the weaker instead. This I suspect is at the heart of many of the problems in relationships.
If I’m taking a page from the Original Post, this would make you a closet egalitarian since this is the principle upon which egalitarianism is based. 🙂
It is complimentarianism that is saying that we need additional spiritual (?) moral (?) or ethical (?) guidelines between the sexes in order for our behavior to be truly godly.
Hodge wrote:
TL responded (re: the origins of “complementarian”):
Hodge responded back:
Hodge: Until one can find the Yahoo list and look for the posts via Google’s caching function (assuming Google was caching it then), from my searching for the origins of the term “complementarian” and its relationship to the Patriarchal/Traditional/Hierarchal view, it appears that what TL is saying is supported by others re: Gruden’s coining of the term. So at this point she has the evidence in her favor, even though to you it’s hearsay.
c michael,
cmp:”Especially since the heart of complementarianism is not about submission or leadership.”
I found this statement totally puzzling, since all along you’ve maintained that the defining ingredient for “head pastor” is a male’s essential innate leadership quality. What, then, is the heart of complementarianism?
cmp:”when you have one qualified woman and one qualified man, the man will always be more qualified because of his innate characteristics which are a primary determining factor in the qualification process.”
So, why all the statements about “innate differences” and “essential differences” being such necessary qualifications if “leadership” isn’t at the heart of complementarian theology?
I am still curious as to how you arrived at believing “leadership” is the defining factor that makes a person better suited for pastoral ministry?
Consider that Jesus told Peter to “Feed My sheep,” not “lead My sheep.” He also said not to use the hierarchial model of world, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” He said to be servants, not exercise authority over one another. I can’t find anything called a “head pastor position” in the Bible.
Patriarchy – no voting
Complemenatarian – democracy in which the husband has final say, 51% of the vote
What is the difference? It seems that it is up to each husband to give the wife as much or as little say as he likes.
Frankly, it is discouraging to be able to have your say, and then be overruled. As the wife of one famous complementarian theologian is quoted as saying “I felt as though I had no voice.”
cmp:”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.”
c michael,
Why do you continue to define those “essential differences” in terms of social roles while at the same time acknowledging that gender roles are culturally derived?
Are you saying that you, as a man, have somehow determined exactly a precise cut-off point that separates your ideal “feminine” woman from your ideal “masculine” man?
“To deny these differences is to deny the design of God and thwart his purpose.”
I’m assuming from this statement that you believe God had a another purpose in mind when making humans male and female besides the multiplication of the human race in order for the Savior to come “in the fullness of time”?
Kay wrote:
We already know from this feature-length (almost-needs-an-intermission length) discussion that the terms "essential" and "characteristics" have not been properly defined or explained or explicated. Hence, many remain in the dark re: "What Complementarianism is Really All About” re: what it is about a woman that precludes her from doing or being in the church what a man can do or can be, and why.
Sometimes my main frustration with these discussions is that it seems that the majority of it centers around whether a woman is as capable of leading as a man….and we can agree that they are….so then the conclusion is that women should be permitted to take on any and all pastoral and home headship roles. I really think that the essence of the conversation should always be focused on trying to bow to God’s authority and how He has established lines of authority, as laid out in His word. Why is it that generally speaking God’s word isn’t given the priority trump in all arguments? And, the truth remains that traditionally, through the centuries, this issue wasn’t debated, but rather both genders accepted the straight-forward reading of the text. As there has been a cultural shift in the past century…everything has changed, so we are then to try to see God’s word differently to fit what seems right to us now? I don’t think that it is oppressive to women to have male headship in the home/ nor to be excluded for top pastoral positions. Just because some stupid husbands use their ‘God given position’ to sinfully domineer their wives is not a reason to throw our the God ordained order. I’m sure there are plenty of men who claim to be egalitarians who are equally guilty of this sort of behavior….because they are sinners too. Some men are just naturally bossy and controlling (as are some women).
And, the truth remains that traditionally, through the centuries, this issue wasn’t debated, but rather both genders accepted the straight-forward reading of the text.
And, the truth remains that traditionally, through the centuries, the belief that the blood and wine of the Eucharist really were and really became Christ’s body and blood, and the belief that the act of baptism really forgave the sins and caused the spiritual regeneration of the baptized, and the belief that the gift of the Holy Spirit was imparted by the laying on of hands and anointing by the properly and apostolically-traceably-ordained priest or bishop weren’t debated, but rather both genders accepted the straight-forward reading of the text.
Ah, the elusive one-size-fits-all straight-forward reading of the text. That’s why all Christians believe and agree on the same things. ‘Cause the text is so straight-forward.
cont……
I realize that there are plenty of Bible scholars who have (in the past 40 years or so) worked hard to demonstrate from scripture that saying women are excluded from any and all headship is not scriptural. Dan Wallace, being one of the top five Greek grammarians in the word says that one has to do an awful lot of ‘exegetical gymnastics’ to come to the egalitarian position….although I think I know his thoughts on the subject enough to call him a ‘soft complementarian’. To me, the MOST IMPORTANT issue is that we seek to know GOD’S intent, and that we humbly bow to that even if it doesn’t always fit how we would arrange things if we we God. I fail to see this as an issue of oppression, and it bothers me that some always make it out to be that. I don’t feel oppressed by my husbands headship…unless he abuses that position (which is sin)…not God’s intent. I’ve been asked (in my complementarian church, to teach a mixed gender adult class….but I will never be asked to be a pastor. I’m totally OK with that. I don’t see any oppression in women being excluded from that role. God has reasons, and I might not understand them 100%, but I know that He is a loving creator….and we are the created, who ideally will submit to his infinite wisdom.
Dear Susan,
You have given us a most outstanding trifecta of comments in #427, #438, and #440.
The best 3 comments in the entire thread in my opinion.
Thank you very, very, very much.
Congratulations, Susan. You just won or were awarded the gold, silver and bronze medals from TUAD for this marathon of a thread. 🙂
Susan,
I agree that both sexes do not bow enough to God’s concept of mutual submission. We often read each other’s scriptural mail, so to speak. Men glom on to the submission verses, and women object when they are treated more like employees in the home and the church. Women miss it when they insist all male authority is bad.
Not to get too far off the topic of the post, but I think this is an important point. I do think a lot of this current day problem is not providing our youth with enough training in Godly relationships in the church when they are young and unmarried. In my mind, that is the time to head off what could be a big potential problem later on by explaining what God intended marriage to be for both sexes.
Instead we give them pizza and stress entertainment, rather than teaching them usable life skills. I think this is going to have to change because more and more Christian marriages are breaking up, and we are hearing more about spousal abuse.
Still think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 🙂
Susan,
IMO what really matters is what is the truth. And as Eric has pointed out truth is not so easy to find. Christians for centuries found it acceptable to have slaves and we even warred about it with some Christian churches supporting the wrong side of the argument. Now we ‘get it’.
I have come to view the argument of “the plain text” as an invitation to helicopter hoist a section of Scripture (sometimes even a piece of a sentence) out of it’s contextual home and use it to support something not the original intent of the authors. To seek original intent is sometimes a complicated search. As Peter said in 2 Peter 3, there are things in Paul’s writings that are difficult to understand. So, we should seek to be as the Berean’s and diligently study all of the Scriptures to grasp the full import, rather than hoisting a few words and make them say what seem’s good to us.
Thanks tu&d, that is a nice thing to say…..and Eric…although I realize you don’t agree with the judging….you made me laugh!
Susan: “And, the truth remains that traditionally, through the centuries, this issue wasn’t debated, but rather both genders accepted the straight-forward reading of the text. As there has been a cultural shift in the past century…everything has changed, so we are then to try to see God’s word differently to fit what seems right to us now?
I realize that there are plenty of Bible scholars who have (in the past 40 years or so) worked hard to demonstrate from scripture that saying women are excluded from any and all headship is not scriptural.”
Susan, the late Dr. Gordon Clark agrees with you and he wrote the following: “The Protestant Reformation, for all its opposition to Romanism, never questioned the practice of ordaining men only. Now, if this practice has continued from the time of Abraham down to 1960 or thereabouts, those who are innovators surely must bear the burden of proof. The Westminster Confession indeed says, ‘All Synods…may err, and many have erred.’ Therefore it is theoretically possible that the Reformed Presbyterian Church is in error. But when the agreement is worldwide over 4,000 years, it is, I repeat, extremely improbable. Therefore a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate the ordination of women.”
TL, I hear you, and I’m not a scholar, but I defer it Dan Wallace because I know his heart, and that he has studied this from the Greek long and hard. I know that he would have welcomed seeing the more egalitarian perspective in the text if he could have found it. There was a part of him that wanted that, because he certainly holds women in high esteem…and trains many a female seminary student. I know that his heart is always to bow to finding God’s intent as much as is humanly possible…praying always that God will lead him to His meaning. I respect that. I feel comfortable with his conclusions in this area.
I have been following the conversation resulting from these threads over on Sue’s website. Someone over there listed all of these Scriptures that refer specifically to this issue:
‘Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord.’ (Eph 5:22)
‘For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church’ (Eph 5:23)
‘Now as the church submits to Christ, so also should wives submit in everything to their husbands’ (Eph 5:24)
‘Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.’ (Col 3:18)
‘train the young women to.. be.. submissive to their own husbands’ (Titus 2:4-5)
‘Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.’ (1Cor11:3,9)
Even Peter agrees, ‘wives, be subject to your own husbands’ (1 Pet 3:1)
‘I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.’ (1Tim 2:12)
‘As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission as the Law also says… For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.’ (1 Cor14:34-35)
(These verses were copies and pasted directly from there and I haven’t double checked to be sure all of the references were listed correctly.)
These instructions were given to the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Corinthians, to Titus, to Timothy and Peter also gave them.
Sounds pretty straight forward and “plain reading of Scripture” to me. To be stated so many times to so many people by more then one writer of Scirpture–seems to me it takes some pretty heavy gymnastics of some sort to get around them!
My view: At some point, you have to know when the other is not going to concede to your point. Each & everytime one tries to explain what he/she meant in a prior comment, someone else comes along & issues a new challenge to what you (plural) just claimed. In other words, the more you break it down, rather than being complete & thorough in your explanation which, of course, is your intent, the more someone takes issue to your new words That’s because everyone here is intelligent & in addition to their beliefs and understanding, has the gift of debate. I am concerned this is becoming a competitive war of the words rather than seeking God & all His righteousness. I’d like to see a show of hands from the egals and comps on this: Egals if God Himself gave you a vision and showed you the correct & intended interpretation is how the comps understand it, would you publically admit, confess it? I’d ask the comps the same question. Show me your hands. Who would humble themselves & step forward and be glad to settle it once and for all? Who would choke when they learned from the Master Himself that women indeed are encouraged to pastor if they had the gifts to do so? Who would choke if the Master Himself revealed that the comps were right and that the order they explain is His divine order? Could either of you live in harmony with no resentment with the opposing view and serve The Master with your whole heart? Because, Friends, somebody is right….but somebody is wrong. What matters most to you? Being right, winning or seeking God & His ways? Because God can judge our hearts and we may never have a 100% answer for this. He is watching and listening for our intent. He is watching to see if we place His comfort above our own and submit in faith to that which we do not understand. If we ask the Holy Spirit to search our hearts in regard to this matter & we are sincere, He will put us on the right path. He may not answer the “why” question but He will place uwhere we need…
Is God a patriarchalist, a complementarian, or an egalitarian?
Is God a Calvinist or an Arminian?
Do you have to be baptized to be saved?
Do the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper become Christ’s body and blood?
Is/was Mary perpetually virgin?
Is light a wave or a particle?
Did Keyser Soze actually exist?
Show me your hands.
The Holy Spirit has HIS hand held high. I’d call on HIM if I were you. He’s sitting in the front.