Call all Complementarians (near and far, hard or soft, dashingly hot or strangely odd)! You are cordially invited to share your thoughts about what you feel Egal’s totally don’t get (about your beliefs) in the comments box below.
This is an opportunity to share what it is you think most Egalitarians fail to understand when it comes to comprehending your Complementarian framework.
Egalitarians, you are humbly requested to, ahem, “mutually submit” yourselves to the following honor code:
Repeat slowly to self: I, [name here], will not read the comments section of this blog post until I have committed to refrain from commenting in response to this post or the comments it generates, unless—and only unless—my comment is toward a participating Comp and consists of something along the lines of, “Thank you so much for sharing.”
Please know that there is no hidden agenda to this post. I’m genuinely interested and think I can learn a lot from this (and have been meaning to get this question written into a post for some time).
“Man’s inability to communicate is a result of his failure to listen effectively.”
— Carl Rogers
I’m not sure where my views fit…at what point does one tip over from one camp into the other?
Really interested to read what is written here.
Molly,
May a “neitherist” or perhaps an “otherist” comment. I see strengths on both sides (and the inability to perceive these by opposing “camps”). . .I also see some drawbacks on each side. . .seems fairly human, to me.
The sticking point often appears to be the individual understanding (personal definitions) of authority and submission. I think it was you who pointed out that these are often formed as a result of cultural upbringing and perhaps even denominational traditions and how each forms a general understanding or paradigm, that we, as individuals cherish and are “closed” toward modification.
I am more of a story-picture-metaphor kind of girl–I love parables! So, in musing on the nature of authority and submission, I thought (of course) of a metaphor. Interestingly, I think it could support, in some ways, BOTH sides of this debate–or, perhaps neither side, also.
I was thinking of mountains. I live in the prairie, so I do not have much experience with mountains. However, I have visited mountains and climbed their peaks. There are a lot of references to mountains in scripture.
A mountain is defined by its peak. The glory of a mountain, its awe, the beauty, the character, are usually defined in relation to the peak.
However, I have noticed that mountains are not comprised of the peak only. Mountains have feet. Now, the foot of the mountain does not receive the same sort of attention that the peak does. . .. Yet, without the foot. . .there is no peak. I mean, without the support (for the foot holds up the peak), the peak itself lies flat, and really, there is no mountain.
It is on the foot of the mountain that practical life is lived–not many folk live on mountain peaks. The foot of the mountain is where mines are dug, farms are terraced, and sheep are grazed. If you wish to reach the summit, you must first climb the base. The foot is habitable, accessible, and where there is shelter from the fierceness of the storms on the peak.
The peak needs the foot, and though, the foot receives less attention or glory, its value is not diminished, rather, enhanced by the peak that rests atop it. There is no “greater” or “lesser” in this paradigm. If outside forces undermine the integrity of the foot, then the peak tumbles down and crushes them. . .the peak has somewhat at stake to “protect” the foot that supports it.
I could go on, but, I think it would belabor the general idea. I think my particular “cultural background” and “denominational” ideas cause me to define things “other.” I think it is the “heart” of the matter that plays hide-and-seek in our discussions. When we touch on the heart of God’s intentions. . .the dialogue here becomes beautifully kind and supportive, dissention falls away, and we find a place of agreement. Peace.
I think authority and submission are absolutely necessary. What is the heart of this?
–submission to authority, freely given, produces love, respect, . . .and honor for both.
–submission to authority, extracted by command or demand, produces fear, anger, and violence.
Which does your heart say comes from God?
Merryquaker, thank you so much for that picture!
I don’t know where I fit these days. I think I’m kind of a complementarian at heart, who thinks that things should appear much more egalitarian in practice.
I’ll try to explain: I can’t do away with the verses that speak of a “headship”. I don’t know what to do with them, and I’m trying to understand exactly what they are supposed to mean, but headship comes hand in hand with respect or submission. I’m in the position of owing respect and submission to the head.
The second thing I can’t do away with is the order of creation (which explains headship to an extent, although rather obscurely). I don’t think the order of creation makes one or the other any better or with more “say” in things.
I also notice that the man is the one who has to leave father and mother to cleave to wife. I think that is one more piece of the puzzle that often goes unnoticed. Why would God instruct the man to leave and cleave and not the woman? could that be one meaning of head, as in the one who initiates the relationship?
The third, and last, is the fact that woman was created to complement man. I believe this was perfect because they were created like that before sin entered their lives, so God meant it to be that way.
However, I don’t agree with the general consensus complementarians have reached that a man has a “role” to play as the leader, and a woman has the “role” to follow, because they don’t respect the equality that both have because both were made in the image of God, are joint heirs, and equally responsible in the sight of God.
I believe we start going into muddy waters when we try to define those “roles”. Paul didn’t do it. Jesus didn’t do it either, so why should we?
As a wife, I believe it’s right for me to love my husband, want to serve him and be good to him. I want to help him, support him and be there for him. I want to treat him like I want to be treated. I hate manipulation, so I won’t manipulate him (like some popular books teach women to do). I’d rather be straightforward with my input.
This is not demeaning. It’s my choice, and I do it out of reverence for Christ.
My husband chooses to love me, support me, help me, be there for me, etc…
Paul pretty much describes a relationship of esteeming the other as above oneself, loving, respecting and submitting.
It all becomes demeaning when we start reading things into the Bible that aren’t there, thus creating a hierarchy that is not ordained in the Bible.
That’s probably as clear as mud…
Can you see why I still can’t let go of some “complementarianism”?
Merryquaker, that is a wonderful word picture! Its given me food for thought. Thank you.
What is the evidence that kephale and authority are related?
Should authority be associated to gender or based on other attributes?
Can we not submit to someone who is not an authority?
Marilyn,
I apologize for personally hurting you. It is true, I am very much opposed to complementarianism, in a general sense, but not at all opposed to marriages where love and respect are practiced (whatever the label they may have).
I am not sure how to respond, otherwise, though, because, er, the book Love and Respect *did* really bother me. I appreciate that you found it helpful. I didn’t like it at all. But please hear me on this and let me explain: if you say that egalitarianism is something you feel unsupported in God’s word, I’m okay with that.
I just disagree. I won’t take your opinion personally at all—you have the right to have your opinion.
In like manner, please give me the right to dislike something you may like. I promise I will reciprocate!
I mean NO, and I repeat, N.O., personal disrespect or dislike when I don’t like a book that you like. (I’ve actually long forgotten that you ever said you liked it). If we all can’t discuss or dislike that everyone else likes, then, we pretty much can’t talk at all. I like ice cream. If you don’t like it, should I take it personally, or is it fair to say that we both have different tastes? 
In like manner, I’m not hear to get converted to complementarianism. Is there a rule that says we all must be open to being converted in order to discuss anything?
Some may be here because they are in a place of searching and wondering about which side to take, if any, but I think it’s fair to say that many of us here are NOT hear in order to be converted to the other side’s views: we are here to discuss/dialogue (and debate, though hopefully less and less) AS people who hold two distinctly different views and yet love the same Lord.
I expressed my abject intention to never become a comp (haha) to ellen, in my comment that you quoted, as a way of explaining that I really didn’t want to get “into it” with her—not in order to offend (you or her), but in order to do the exact opposite! LOL… Apparently I really flopped at it, might I add. Please know that I made my comment to try and (kindly?) explain why I was seemingly ignoring her question/debate point. It wasn’t because I was ignoring it—it was because it wasn’t an avenue I wanted to travel down (been there, done that, got the T-shirt, if you know what I mean).
I’m not hear on Complegalitarian to be persuaded. I’m quite firm in my position, to be perfectly honest. I wasn’t trying to say that complementarianism is slavery, but was trying to explain why, in the same way that I’m just flat out not open to listening to someone expound on how slavery is God’s way, in the same way, I’m just as closed to complementarianism being God’s way. I apologize for using an analogy that could be construed as offensive. I didn’t choose it for that—I chose it because it was the first thing that came to my head when I was searching for a “Biblical” topic that could be argued to be “true, Biblically,”
and yet is something I’m just not even interested in considering (right or wrong, on my part). I hope that explains, and I apologize for using an analogy that a better-thought-out comment would have steared clear of. My bad.
As for this post, I am genuinely interested in what comp’s feel that egal’s generally “don’t hear.” I would like to know that because I feel, when talking to serious-comps-at-large, like the egal position is extremely misunderstood and mischaractarized.
I figure that if I feel that way, so must Complementarians. And I don’t want to be guilty of the same bad manners, and have a feeling that I *am* guilty of that, probably far more often than I’d care to know.
That doesn’t mean I won’t continue to disagree heavily with the comp position. But I’d at least like to explain it accurately *while* heavily disagreeing.
HA!
I think that’s a mark of respect, and it’s important. I felt really disrespected when, for example, the CBMW blog mischaractarized the egal position and wrote a few posts about it, referring to a blog post I’d written. They tried to respect me, but yet because they so painfully misunderstood what I was saying, I felt the exact opposite (though I give them an A for good intentions).
I really don’t want to do that, and as I talk about comp/patriarchal issues fairly often on my personal blog, though this might be a good place to get a primer on what egal’s usually royally screw up, so that maybe I can do better.
Hopefully this clarifies where I’m coming from a little bit. I hope you can forgive me, Marilyn, for hurting you. I’m really sorry and certainly did not ever mean to personally wound you in any way.
And, er, now I must repent for breaking my own rules (on how egal’s could comment on this post)…
Molly,
I think Marilyn’s points are well-stated and have not been understood. The Cs on this blog have been steadfastly defending the C framework on a very rational interpretation of scripture to the relentless potshots from some in the E camp but not serving it back in kind. A rather lopsided dialogue, don’t you think?
To address your post topic, the one thing that Es totally do not get is definitions.
roles – having a difference in roles does not mean an inequality in the persons occupying those roles, especially in the area of leadership.
leadership – does not mean that someone (husband)is the slavemaster, and the other (wife) is the slave, yet this is the picture that Es always accuse Cs of following.
biblical – The C camp believes there are roles embedded in creation for husbands and wives and implicitly suggested in scripture. These may not be explicitly spelled out in scripture, but it does not mean that these roles don’t exist. By contrast, Es demand explicit scripture while not having any either to support egalitarianism. Each view takes theirs from scripture implicitly. We should all be brave enough to admit that.
submit – to the Es, it appears to mean “do whatever [the husband] says.” To Cs, respect the role of the husband and find unity in decisions. If a wife disagrees, then she disagrees and should make her opinions known. But at the end of the day, a decision is theirs, not his (even if he changes his view, even if he doesn’t). Let us not forget that we are also told to reason and argue things out (Isa. 1:18).
There are two video clips I want everyone to see. I’ll put it up as a post.
Molly,
Here is a mistake that gets repeated a lot here. You wrote:
“He also tells husbands to grant their wives HONOR. Honor? Huh? Honor is supposed to go to the men, isn’t it? I mean, didn’t somebody write a book all about how husbands need respect/honor and wives need love? I didn’t know women needed honor too…?
*grins* “
Okay, my intent is not to single you out and bash you over the head but ONLY to use your comment as an example.
Subject matter aside, this is an irrational way to respond. One cannot throw red herrings around. Specifically to Molly’s comment, honor is not something reserved for men in anyone’s point of view, so this comes out from way out in left field. Implicit in Molly’s comment is that Cs do not value or believe in honoring women, just men. Step back and evaluate how false that statement is, both positionally and as a mischaracterization of C.
Another example: husbands are the leaders in the home, so he (and he alone) gets to decide how many children the wife should bear,
what she should wear,
how she should do her hair,
even if she thinks it’s not fair.
Again, step back and tell me this is not an utter mischaracterization of complementarianism. It may be true of patriarchy, but not of C.
Let’s just keep the arguments to the point.
[Molly piping in to answer the personal question]:
But, now I hear you saying that the only reason you want me to post, is to be able to better defend yourself against me.
Ack! Marilyn, that’s not what I intended to communicate. I am so sorry. Yes, I was explaining that I do not intend to become a C and that I am not open to it. I still want to better know your point of view, though, because this is something I talk about a lot, and I would like to get better at talking about it (passionately yet) *respectfully.”
If I am miscommunicating core comp beliefs, then I am disrespecting you. If I wanted the fun of arguing and/or pretend defending, then I would never ask the question in this post, because it would go a lot smoother for me if I just blasted Comp thoughts authoritatively (even if I had them wrong). I tend to speak quickly, off-the-cuff, and with dramatic flair. This can be a problem when I’m messing with the sensitive areas of others (which I’m usually unaware of). I’d like to get better, or at least to try.
On my admission to not being here in order to become open to being a Comp… Hm, I am had a very bad experience living in a (hard) C marriage for almost a decade. (How can I explain what can only be experienced…?
I still have all the C books (lots and lots and lots) on the edge of my desk (I love studying gender and faith). From an intellectual standpoint, I’ve left a firm and solid C position. But on an experiential/emotional note, the thought of ever going back literally makes me sick to my stomach. I am not sure how to communicate this without offending, because I am trying to express something that is VERY personal for me. I cannot explain the depth of my knee-jerk reaction of, “fight or flight,” but I am trying to be really honest and transparent here—all cards on the table. I did not join this blog in order to become a Comp. I do not participate here in order to become a comp. I participate because the study of faith and gender is probably the most interesting topic I know of. I was not made aware of any rule that said we can only participate if we want to join the other side, however if that is so, I will humbly apologize and leave this blog.
If God’s way is most rightly expressed in the Comp camp, I have no doubt He will gently lead me back there (and have prayed as such), but I’m pretty sure it won’t be until this other stuff is healed. Until that point, it is 100% non-optional for me.
Now, I want to respond to some of the comments made here regarding doctrine, but I’m mustering up my will-power and WILL NOT DO IT.
Letitia, thank for adding some of your thoughts.
Warmly,
Molly
I am extremely disturbed by some of these comments. First, some slaves chose to die of starvation rather than remain in slavery. Slavery can be defended from the scriptures.
I do not think that it is possible to put into words what I feel, so I won’t attempt it again. But it relates to the paragraph above.
However, I deeply and totally repulse the suggestion that as an egalitarian I do not have the same respect for the scriptures as a complementarian. Since I decided to become a Bible translator at the age of 14 I studied Greek 5 days a week for 7 years. I studied Latin, French, German and Hebrew. And what did I find? A bible that does not exist in English.
Here is a recent post of mine elsewhere. Please tell me that I am not faithful to the text.
——–
Next, I would like to return to the text. You say,
“Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority”
You seem to agree that “to exercise authority” qualifies the teaching that is not permitted to women. Many people hold this view.
However, this now means that the crux of the matter rests on the meaning of authentein.
I have read the studies and looked at the evidence and I have some fundamental questions.
What if authentein means “to dominate” then the verse would mean,
“Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the type of teaching which dominates.”
In fact, this word authentein was translated with such a meaning for 1500 years. The word used was the identical word used in Gen. 3:16. Let me rather suggest,
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
I do not permit a woman to teach or to rule over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
My sources are,
Jerome
Gen. 3:16
et sub viri potestate eris et ipse dominabitur tui
(and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.)
1 Tm. 2:12
docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum sed esse in silentio
(But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over the man: but to be in silence.)
Erasmus had usurpare auctoritatem in this verse.
Luther translated according to Jerome,
Gen. 3:16
und dein Verlangen soll nach deinem Manne sein, und er soll dein Herr sein. (be your master)
1 Tim. 2:12
Einem Weibe aber gestatte ich nicht, daß sie lehre, auch nicht, daß sie des Mannes Herr sei, sondern stille sei. (be the master of)
But Tyndale translated from Erasmus for this verse and not from Luther. “Usurpare” has a range of meaning in Latin from “seize” to “take” to “use” and so Tyndale simply said “to have authority,” for authentein.
In fact, Erasmus, 1516, was only paraphrasing and revising Jerome’s Vulgate to go along with his Greek text. It appears that Tyndale may have misunderstood Erasmus’ use of “usurpare.”
In any case, a translation which uses “to exercise authority” is actually revision of Tyndale, which is a translation of Erasmus, which is a revision of Jerome, which is a translation of the Greek.
So, I am very surprised by those who say that Tyndale got it right and Jerome, Luther and Erasmus all got it wrong. That seems so unlikely as to be impossible.
But what about occurrences of authentein at the time of the NT? Here is what Andreas Kostenberger writes,
owing to the scarcity of the term in ancient literature (the only NT occurrence is 1 Tim. 2:12; found only twice preceding the NT in extrabiblical literature) no firm conclusions could be reached on the basis of lexical study alone.
The two pieces of evidence which Kostenberger cites are,
Philodemus (1st cent. BCE): “Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (authent[ou]sin) are villains, and hated by both gods and men”;
and BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (authentekotos) over him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.” For full Greek texts and translations, see Baldwin, “Appendix 2” in Women in the Church, 275–76. (in the PDF page 13)
But, of course, the first piece of evidence does not exist as many people now recognize, and I can demonstrate this without a doubt.
In the second occurrence authentein is usually translated as “compel.” There was no official authority of any kind. One person made someone else do something. Grudem agrees with Baldwin that one person “compelled” another person in this citation. This citation is listed under the category of “compel, influence” in Baldwin’s study.
This one citation is the only evidence contemporary with the NT.
Later evidence is varied but one well-known occurrence is in Chrysostom where he tells men that they are not to authentein a wife. It is forbidden to treat her so harshly.
It appears from this that the following translation is most valid,
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
I do not permit a woman to teach or to rule over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
This is consistent with the teaching that sin is the cause of the domination of woman by man, and that because man was created first, woman is not to dominate man.
In any case, before Erasmus, there was no suggestion that authentein referred to “teaching with authority.”
I would very much like to see a response to this, since I do not find that “to have authority” accords with the traditional way to translate the Hebrew mashal or the Greek authentein.
In view of the evidence I do not believe that one can in good conscience regard “to have authority” as a possible translation of authentein. Our understanding of this verse must be revisited.
I am repeatedly frustrated and upset that few Bible scholars have ever cared to investigate these things in depth.
I feel completely isolated and cut off because exegesis does not take place at this level. I am sorry Marilyn, but I have been repeatedly hurt by so many people and have seen so little interest in the truth that it drives me to distraction. Doesn’t anyone at all want to know what these verses actually mean?
“Suzanne, to me, your words were really sinful. I expected you to follow up with a post saying that you saw your sin and had asked God to forgive you for questioning the authority of Scripture.”
Marilyn, You have lost me here. If I take your view of the OT, then I must come to the conclusion that Slavery is condoned by God. Polygamy, too. Would that be a high view of the OT?
I happen to agree with you about Michel, btw. What David was doing was pleasing to God but not to Michel. Still, David was in sin for having so many wives and it caused lots of problems. Why is that not condemned? It just isn’t. God is working through sinful man in the OT to show His Glory. I could give you tons of examples. I could give you examples of a pagan having more character than a Patriarch!
I think we need to be very careful about how we view the OT and use it against others to accuse them of having a low view of scripture. The OT points us to Christ and shows us God’s Sovreignty working through very sinful people.
I wrote,
The narrative does seem to judge Michal, but this doesn’t mean that we the readers should do so…
I feel sorry for them, but I would not take the part of the narrative and judge Michal …”
I think the narrative is fairly moderate and open to various interpretations on Michal.
I have lived in a very fundamentalist environment my entire life and I have heard many questioning comments regarding what is right in the narratives of Tamar and Judah, Jacob and Rebekah deceiving Isaac, Rachel sitting on the household gods, Sarah’s actions towards Hagar and many other perplexing texts.
Marilyn,
I was clearly not aware that you would regard inquiry into the meaning of a story as a sin. No, I don’t think that we need to regard every killing and every terrible thing that happened in the Old Testament as a model for our life today. I just didn’t know that this would be a problem for some people.
I do believe that David sinned against women in some complex ways, and that although Bathsheba was later blessed with the birth of Solomon, many people wonder if God really wishes the child born of adultery to die.
Did God have the child die because of the adultery, and would we expect to establish a principle for our lives today on this event? Would we expect the baby born of rape to die today. This is my concern, the extension of events in the OT into principles for our life.
First, Bathsheba’s baby dies. And then Solomon is born as a blessing. Does this make polygamy just?
These are valid questions for women. I cannot repent of this as a sin.
On kephale,
A statement was made that kephale always meant “authority over.” This has been the teaching of complementarians.
I went to the text on which this was based, in Philo, and found that the kephale was the one who was illustrious, virtuous, a model of excellence. I found that there was NO case where the kephale had authority over the ones that he was the kephale of.
I have yet to find “authority over” as a meaning of kephale. There is a tension between “the most virtuous person being held up as a model of excellence” and “the male being in authority over the female.” I do not see complementarians resolving this tension. I would like to see an honest recounting of evidence. I feel that someone tried to make me believe that this text said the kepahale is the authority in order to make me obey a male authority. Then I found out that the text said that we should have a virtuous person as our model. Isn’t this a long distance, one from the other.
If maleness cannot be equated with virtuosity, then I think we need to reconsider this. There are many other uses of kephale in ancient texts. That is only one. What I don’t see is people simply saying, let’s actually look at what the texts tell us about kephale. I don’t see anyone really doing that.
Now this argument was presented to me by my pastor, who said that he would simply take Grudem’s study at face value, the male has authority, and he would not allow discussion of the facts. He is a soft comp, for sure, but I had to leave the church, my fellowship, for this reason and others.
The other pastor was a signatory of the anti-TNIV statement. This statement is not accurate and the behind-the-scenes antics here are far too unpleasant to retell. Really, I cannot say more without dishonouring the name of Christendom. It is something that I don’t want to be associated with anymore.
Marilyn,
The operative word in my original statement was “seem to.” Quite frankly in my fundamentalist upbringing I was taught that David did something wrong and Michal disapproved of it.
I am now not so sure of what David did that Michal disapproved of. However, I utterly deplore the suggestion that Michal is an example of why loving one’s husband is not as important as respecting one’s husband.
Really, I don’t think any of us know what to think of David’s many wives so we should just let it rest.
I am more upset by the fact that the studies that I read, on kephale, authentein, Junia, etc. all use evidence without due rigor, and produce conclusions that do not accord with the evidence.
I thought that people would be happy to know the facts but it appears not. I feel sad about that, but I guess there is not much to be done.
Wayne, I read your invitation on the P&P blog, and here I am.
I have a question for Molly if I may:
You said in a comment to Marilyn:
we are here to discuss/dialogue (and debate, though hopefully less and less) AS people who hold two distinctly different views and yet love the same Lord.
(My bold)
My question relates to the way you understand the word debate – what difference do you see between discussing and debating? I understand from your “hopefully less and less” that you see debate to be a bad thing – an idea I have come across on other Christian fora. Can you explain why?
Thanks.
Welcome, Susan.
Dear Charity,
I actually don’t see debating as a bad thing. I guess what I probably should have said was a “spirit of debating,” or a similar phrase that would indicate a “desire to fight.” The goal at this blog is NOT to fight back and forth betwixt ourselves (though that has happened, er, sometimes) but to actually CONVERSE. To have deep discussions that do not always agree, but that always maintain an attitude of respect.
Debate, to me, can be done with respect. But for some people, the word is a synonym for “fight.” So I was trying to communicate that fighting (just for the sake of fighting) is not what we want here.
Hope that clarifies!
Warmly,
Molly
Thanks for you answer, Molly, that’s helpful.
I guess some must have a different understanding of the word debate, which for me means something along the lines of a discussion where people disagree but do so respectfully. So for me I’ve always seen the ban on debate as being a ban on expressing a different point of view.
I think I’m hearing that for you (and maybe for others) a “spirit of debate” is what I would call being argumentative, maybe for the sake of being argumentative.
Thank you for taking the time to answer.