Here are the grammatical corrections:
Much of the maligned predictions of those who see a theological difference between men and women are coming home to roost. When we fail to acknowledge a divinely intentional difference in the design of men and women, society begins to crumble and fumble at the most fundamental levels.
Those who have claimed that people are not unique by sex, only by their giftedness, set the stage for the current cultural crisis. Egalitarian theologians have asserted that the church should position people according to their acumen, passions, and abilities without regard to sex. In this situation, there is no such thing as teaching a man to be manly or a woman to be womanly. For fear of the perception of insensitivity, cultural irrelevance, and backlash, they have compromised the biblical precept and historic principle of the essential differences between males and females. Instead of recognizing, fostering, and, indeed, celebrating these God-given differences, they have attempted to erase the lines of distinction. With red faces, they apologize for the cultural compromises of the biblical authors and seek to stand in the gap between an angry mob of fallen humanity and God.
Unfortunately, slippery slope arguments are often true and practically valid, needing to be recognized rather than called out as a fallacy. Although this compromise is not heretical in nature (i.e., it does not keep one out of the gates of heaven), it is heterodoxical and has a profound impact on humanity’s ability to live in fulfillment of the Proto-Great Commission—subduing the earth as God’s images. We see today what was portended by complementarian polemicists: sex is now something we choose, not something we are. And the earthquake has not yet run its course. The salt of the earth lost its savor, and this is what it looks like.
This is not an angry “I-told-you-so” that is intended to gloat or claim victory. Far from it. It is a plea for us to be humble of mind and read the writing on the wall. The egalitarian and complementarian debate should be coming to a close in the evangelical church. There is a place of happy compromise, but it does not lie in any kind of denial of the fundamental distinctions between men and women.
Do not double down on this wrecking ball while the building is falling. Society is being neutered. But it can change. Whatever you call yourself, please come help us hold the building up and, as God’s image-bearing stewards of the earth. It is time to recognize this is not a political issue but has always been theological. The hour has come to find, not the winning team, but the right team and recognize the responsibility we have had in giving arms to the enemy by handing this over to Washington.
The phrase “We have met the enemy and he is us” originates from Walt Kelly’s long-running comic strip “Pogo.” It was used in a 1970 Earth Day poster that featured Pogo, the main character, looking at a littered and polluted swamp, reflecting on the human responsibility for environmental problems. The line is a play on a message sent by U.S. Navy Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry during the War of 1812: “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” Walt Kelly adapted it to convey the idea that, in many cases, we are our own worst enemy, especially with respect to how we treat the environment.
We are responsible for the current social environment. We have been far too silent in the past. We have seen the enemy, and it is us.
3 replies to "We Have Met the Enemy: Not to Say We Told You So, But . . ."
Personally speaking,
I was in the US Navy, and I had an office job. Payroll. Some might consider that a woman’s job. I took typing in high school. Did I do that because I felt like a woman, or wanted a female gender role? Lol. No. I was girl crazy! I don’t believe that to be a slippery slope.
I’ve had numerous women bosses. And I didn’t mind, or care. I had no problem with women’s lib in the 70’s.
Now, some religious folks might object. I don’t care. I typed. I open envelopes. I filed paperwork. I answered phones And I obeyed my female bosses.
Now, the apostle Paul would have had a problem with that. HE told women to sit down and shut up. HE didn’t allow a woman to teach. Well, good for him.
If a woman can teach me about God, so be it. Let God be the judge. No woman I know begins teaching by saying, “And the serpent said…”
After all, while the men were sulking, thinking that they bet on the wrong man, it was the women that spread the gospel… to the men.
Did the men say, “Shut up woman, you have no right to teach me anything!”?
I think that the religious has taken this stance a bit too far, and in the end, we’ve had numerous spiritual, psychological, sexual, and physical abusive marriages, because the man seeks power over the woman as if she is his personal slave. Hasn’t the last 20 years of spiritual abuse blogs taught us anything? Especially in the Baptist world?
The Bible shows us women prophets that would have been dismissed, due to gender role rules. Sit down and shut up?
The women’s lib of the 70’s did not cause what we are seeing today regarding men being men, or women being women. That’s coming from the non-religious. The Sodom and Gomorrah folks.
Ed Chapman
The perspective you’ve provided offers a well-established complementarian viewpoint. However, there may be room to explore this topic from fresh angles that haven’t been widely discussed.
Dr. Francis Schaeffer, a theologian and scholar (late), presented the idea of living in a “two story house” as a metaphor to describe the division between faith and reason or the sacred and the secular. In this metaphorical house, the “lower story” is the realm of rationality, science, and empirical data, while the “upper story” is the realm of faith, religious beliefs, and spiritual experiences. Schaeffer cautioned against a dualistic way of thinking that completely separates these two realms, arguing that it could lead to inconsistencies in one’s worldview and lived experiences.
Applying Schaeffer’s metaphor to the complementarian perspective, one could argue that complementarians, hence forth denoted as C– may sometimes live in a “two story house” because:
Chiasm between Scripture and Culture: C often claim that their viewpoint is solely based on Scripture, placing it in the “upper story” of spiritual truths, while dismissing or ignoring sociological and psychological data that support more egalitarian views as merely “lower story “cultural phenomena. This creates a divide between sacred teachings and secular knowledge, which cause a less integrated worldview. Furthermore, if certain traditional gender roles are upheld as spiritually mandated —upper story, then logically, all such roles and norms presented in the Bible should be maintained. But many C adapt or dismiss roles that are culturally outdated, like women cover their head in church, relegating them to the lower story of cultural relativism. Dress code—1 Tim. 2:9, interpretations and applications vary. Some churches might enforce strict dress code for women but not for men, other churches might leave it individual discretion. Some C hold that while men are the leaders in the church and home, women can exercise authority in the “secular” or public sphere. This division might be convenient for navigating contemporary life but isn’t a distinction that the Bible makes explicitly, adding more inconsistency. Many C have no issue with women working outside the home, and have authority of their workers, which could be seen as inconsistent if they simultaneously argue for “traditional” roles based on other scriptural passages. So, this selective application may suggest a two- story separation between what is deemed eternally relevant and what is considered culturally bound.
Next, consider ethical implications—this affects upper and lower stories. While C may argue that distinct roles for men and women are a matter of divine command (upper story), they may not fully engage with ethical questions that arise in the “lower story,” such as issues of justice, equality, or psychological well-being relate to these roles.
Last but not least, moral and practical dualism— Men and women have different but complementary roles could lead to dualism where moral or spiritual worth is assigned to specific gender roles (upper story), while practical considerations of equality, fairness, or individual capability (lower story) may be overlooked or devalued
In conclusion Schaeffer’s critique of “two-story” thinking, a more holistic approach would integrate faith with reason, theology with ethics, and spiritual beliefs with practical living. This approach would seem to be more coherent and consistent view of gender roles that takes into account both scriptural teachings and the complexities of contemporary experience.
Michael, I think you need to be more specific and clear in what you are asking when you say we should find the “right team.”
I don’t see any right teams available. I see one team that doesn’t acknowledge biblical principles, and doesn’t claim to. The other team claims to be for biblical principles yet utterly betrays this in what they actually do. They will throw Christians and biblical principles under the bus whenever convenient.