Sam at Unrelated Ramblings recently posed some critisicm to complementarian thought (please read the full post here).
To sum them up in my own words, his two main thoughts are:
1. What purpose does it serve to have women as inferiors in a spiritual/church/home hierarchy when they appear to be quite capable of leadership in every other area?
2. Upon deciding on hierarchal gender roles, doesn’t the then required “practical details” list (regarding the specifics of what women can and can’t do in the church and home) seem a little more like the old covenant and less like the new?
When I was a complementarian, my answer to the first question would have been that it doesn’t matter if women are or are not capable—that’s not the point. The point is that Christ and His Church must be exemplified in our lives. That we may have to sublimate parts of ourselves in order to do that is a small sacrifice compared to what He did for us. God’s word is to be obeyed, when we feel like it and when we don’t, and the Bible clearly says that women are not to be leaders in the home or the church. Whether or not it “makes sense” from our vantage point is beside the point.
My former answer to the second comment would have been that it only feels like “law” if you don’t grasp the liberating spirit of it.
My answer now to Sam’s post is something along the lines of, “Good post, brother.” I think the criticisms are valid points worth talking about, primarily because I think that the complementarian interpretation of Scripture is one optional interpretation, not the only one, therefore questions like Sam’s have a lot to do with how a person like myself gauges which interpretations are more likely to be accurate. It’s an interesting thing—looking at optional interpretations and judging them. Worth discussing.
Also, especially in the interest of fairness, it would be nice to hear other complementarian responses to Sam’s questions besides the ones I imagined myself giving. Thoughts?
Thanks for the link Molly. I’m mostly quoting others so I can’t take credit for the wording and formulation though.
Good posts, you two.
My comp friend tells me his answers:
1) it’s spiritual ontology. And I think I understand him meaning that precisely when it’s spiritual/church/home domains (and no other domains) maleness means God and Jesus-man and husband but femaleness means a less-divine being and Christ-body and wife – womb-man – and help-meet.
2) it’s spiritual ontology. Which must mean, yes, the “spirit” of any such law and detail.
Molly, You also said When I was a complementarian,. My experience is that conversion is usually in that direction for most of us. Why is that? And are there any of you who have had a conversion in the other direction; that is, from egalitarianism to complementarianism? If so, how did you answer 1 & 2, and how now?
JK, I formerly *said* I had been egalitarian and then converted to complementarianism. I truly believed that. However it was later, after learning what egal’s actually stand for, that I realized I’d never been egalitarian. (I’d *never* believed in mutual submission, mutual respect).
Also interesting, I found that in switching from hard comp to egalitarianism, very little changed with regards to the way I relate to my husband on a day to day basis, *because* I understand the Bible to teach me that respecting others is simply what a Christ-follower does. So I still work to respect and love him just as I did before.
The difference now is that I also respect myself in ways that I didn’t before. I don’t respect my husband because he is male and I am female, in other words, but I respect him because he is a human being made in God’s image.
@JK: Can you expand a little, I don’t quite follow your explanations. The argument usually put forth in defense of a comp. view is “ontologically equal but functionally subordinate”. However, when you say “its spiritual ontology”, you suggesting that there isn’t ontological equality, that women are “less equal” than mean by their very essence?
Complementarian views are not presented accurately on this site.
They are usually presented from an egalitarian point of view.
David,
There are more egals than comps here, and the comps we have are of the mild variety, which is another way of saying that you are exactly right. I know that Wayne has looked for other comps to add to the author list, though, so please know that the lack of more comp input is not his desire.
Would you like to share a comp perspective on Sam’s questions? We’d love to hear it.
I have a friend from back in college who had pretty strong feminist leanings and was definitely egal. After graduating, and leaving that environment, she attended a very conservative church where she saw the error of her ways and has been a strong comp ever since (15-20 years). So people do go from egal to comp.
As for the “list” being a little too much like the Mosaic Covenant, is that a bad thing? Note that neither Jesus nor Paul had anything bad to say about the Law. As E. P. Sanders comments, we should be careful to avoid reading reformation battles against the Catholic Church into the NT writings regarding the Law. (Protestants tend to read the NT through the eyes of Luther and/or Calvin, and not necessarily what the NT authors meant.) I submit that the “list” is a red herring.
But you are correct that much of the debate is happening on the wrong level. It is a matter interpretation. How do we read the bible? If I find a verse that says something, is it always true for all times? Is the “plain sense” for us today the same plain sense of the authors? Does it matter?
David said:
Complementarian views are not presented accurately on this site.
They are usually presented from an egalitarian point of view.
If by “accurately” you mean the CBMW variety, then you are correct. I consider myself very much a complementarian, but I don’t agree with some of CBMW’s conclusions as to what roles women should occupy either in marriage or in church.
Apologies for being absent lately. I have been pouring whatever little time I have for blogging on other issues for my own blog and shelving the C/E debate.
I DO have a couple of posts on the back burner for this blog. It’s just a matter of polishing them up for the public. So much to do!
Hmmmmm, the general question as I understand, is what could be the “functionality” of comp ideals within the mission of the church, yes?
As a staunch “neitherest-bothest” I must firmly lead you to an example right down the middle. . . it is not so much about the husband/wife thing but the related old practice of head covering (long considered a sign of submission).
I just had a trip by train across the eastern half of the U.S. I sometimes wear head covering at home as a way of personal connection with historical Quaker stuff. On this particular trip I wore head covering the entire time. Not out of religious compulsion–more the practical simplicity (and quite a bit of laziness) of not needing to fool with my hair and still be fairly presentable.
Now, there has been a ton of buzz in the media about how head scarves are degrading and anti-feminist, etc. . . My 17 year old daughter (who also wore head covering for the entire trip) and I found fully the opposite. Apparently, being a bit different, sent out a non-verbal message to others around us. . . the level of respect we received was amazing.
Further, several times over the past week, individuals approached us to ask deep spiritual questions (initiating lengthy conversations and several group prayers in UNION STATION/CHICAGO!!!!). . . do you want to know why they approached us? Because, the head covering told them we were the approachable, in some sense, considered the “good guys.” And for that simple, anti-feminist, so-called degrading kerchief on my hair. . .I was somehow more readily used by God.
I can’t tell you for sure how comp ideals function, or whether they function the same as my little experience. . . sometimes, things like this work contrary to conventional wisdom.
For myself and my daughter, it was an eye opening thing. And, I can tell you sure, I think I will begin wearing that little kerchief EVERY day. . .I don’t care if someone else thinks it degrading. I’ve seen how it opens the door to serve God. That matters more to me.
All I know, is that service is not about titles and big ol’ ministries. . . and I think (while abuse under certain conditions is deplorable), much of the condemnation of comp is based as equally in an (if I may say bluntly without offending–bigoted) or reverse bias. . . valid complaints and issues should be entertained. . . but, it is depressing to see what large mental knots are being twisted to find faults where perhaps there are none. This is like one church telling the other to go get circumcised and the other shouting back about eating pork. I’m beginning to wonder if anyone here really wants to find common ground.
I would like to challenge a die hard egalitarian to make a list of at least five (5) things about comp principles that ARE correct (you know, there will be at least that many). You will never bridge this divide until you establish mutual respect and that starts with finding out that we are not enemies. It’s pretty sad when you wear out the patience of a Quaker.
I’ll try to answer this from my position on the fence.
1. I have always wanted to ask Egalitarians why they believe that a woman can’t fully exercise her gifts unless she has the freedom to teach men from the pulpit. Am I getting it wrong, or is the general belief that teaching children and fellow women, or being under the oversight of a male elder is something degrading?
I can understand the issue with the different translations of words like diakonos (servant or deacon), or wanting to know whether Paul was addressing only the women of a certain church when he made his bold statements forbidding women to preach. But should these restrictions apply today (and I’m not sure!), would that mean that women are of less value or that God doesn’t trust women to preach the Gospel? As far as I can see, even understanding these restrictions literally (and not forgetting the rest of Scripture in the process), there are only two offices that a woman is not supposed to hold. Teaching men, and overseeing.
To answer the question, I don’t see that this order serves any particular purpose.
Within marriage, although I don’t know to what extent I agree, it’s supposed to portray Jesus and the church. But I don’t agree fully with a lot of the teaching around this portrayal because it tends to ignore that a man and a woman are both humans, fully human and therefore sinners. They tend to forget the whole of Scripture and they reduce the source of their teaching to very few verses.
2. Yes, I agree, the list of dos and donts sounds very much like law.
I don’t understand how anyone can believe that a woman is not equal to man, spiritually (she has the same Holy Spirity), as a person (she is made in the image of God), regarding salvation (she is a whosoever, so she is saved by the same means as men), etc…
We were made to complement each other, to hold different offices. That’s why I call myself complementarian. But we were made as equals.
“it is not so much about the husband/wife thing but the related old practice of head covering (long considered a sign of submission).”
But the whole point of 1 Corin 11 is that headcoverings were a CULTURAL sign of submission for women. It had NOTHING to do with Christ. Paul makes this very clear at the end of that passage. We have no such tradition. And since it was a cultural dilemma, Paul taught there is freedom to cover or not.
I have had much the same response carrying a Bible on a plane.
I also point you to Muslim women who cover…we certainly hope they are not approached to share their faith because of a headcovering!
My city is full of Muslim women who cover with just a scarf. Go downtown on any day and you will see hundreds of them. They wear normal modest clothes but cover their heads with a scarf. How can people tell the difference between a Christ scarf and a Muslim scarf?
>Sam:
The argument usually put forth in defense of a comp. view is “ontologically equal but functionally subordinate”. However, when you say “its spiritual ontology”, you suggesting that there isn’t ontological equality, that women are “less equal” than mean by their very essence?
It’s my comp friend who believes in a sort of platonic ideal, that the essence of God is male–everything created then is female. Men and then women are mirrors of this reality, when it comes to spiritual/church/home domains (and no other domains). In other words, he’s okay with a woman president or a female CEO but insists that “spiritual leaders” in church and in family must be male. Somehow, this represents who God is, and what creation must be under God.
>Merryquaker:
I would like to challenge a die hard egalitarian to make a list of at least five (5) things about comp principles that ARE correct (you know, there will be at least that many). You will never bridge this divide until you establish mutual respect and that starts with finding out that we are not enemies.
I suppose I might qualify as such an egalitarian, but am sure no complementarian qualifies as my enemy regardless of how we might wear on our respective nerves.
But let me ask, did abolitionists in the United States in the nineteenth century work to bridge a divide between themselves and slave owners? What mutual respect was possible? Could the die hard abolitionist make a list of human slavery principles that are correct? Let me try:
1) Slavery was, once upon a time, regulated by God in his word. Hence, slave owners were right to own slaves at certain points of human history. (Is this like God allowing divorce, even today, for the hardness of men’s hearts, and women’s too?)
2) Slave owners can make the heart of heart choice NOT to own their slaves. This agency is their “right” as Paul writes it to his slave owning friend Philemon.
3) The number of pro-slavery Bible verses vastly outweigh the number of abolitionist verses. Jesus never said to free slaves. And abolitionism is really a late construct in the West when one considers the swath of human history.
4) Slavery has legal, historical, Christian-denominational, and international precedent. Millions of slave owners and lawyers and courts and legislatures around the world and for so so long, can’t all be wrong can they? During the Civil War of the US, families agonized over slavery. Some very good organizations of Christians endorsed slavery as right.
5) Jesus humbled himself and became a slave to all. Which implies that slaves should do likewise. Such submission is surely right in the heart of God.
Are these parallels unfair? Is the analogy to slavery really impossible? I do not want to make enemies! I really do respect your voice here. It hurts me that your patience is wearing thin. Sincerely, J.K.
You will never bridge this divide until you establish mutual respect and that starts with finding out that we are not enemies.
Count me as another egal who does not feel that comps are my enemies. Most of my friends are in the “lighter” comp cagagories, actually.
However, I did come out of “hard” complementarianism (ala Vision Forum, Douglas Wilson, and that whole steadily growing movement) and it certainly *is* my enemy, in that it seeks to put men and women in the bonds of very strict predetermined gender roles (that include things like questioning whether women should play sports, vote, etc).
Currently the Vision Forum guru wrote a blog post calling all women who’d had an ectopic/tubal pregnancy MURDERERS if they dared to have it taken out. (A good woman would gladly risk her life if it meant that her baby might be born alive, or so Phillips said). That’s the kind of stuff that makes up my background…and which I have no problem viewing as an enemy to the faith, in that it claims (their concept of) gender roles is central to the Gospel.
I have always wanted to ask Egalitarians why they believe that a woman can’t fully exercise her gifts unless she has the freedom to teach men from the pulpit. Am I getting it wrong, or is the general belief that teaching children and fellow women, or being under the oversight of a male elder is something degrading?
But should these restrictions apply today (and I’m not sure!), would that mean that women are of less value or that God doesn’t trust women to preach the Gospel? As far as I can see, even understanding these restrictions literally (and not forgetting the rest of Scripture in the process), there are only two offices that a woman is not supposed to hold. Teaching men, and overseeing.
Madame,
I personally am undecided on the issue of women in the pulpit, but my own questions revolve around the fact that, in real life, the lines regarding teaching/leading often are not clear. If women are as capable as men of teaching, preaching, and overseeing (as I believe they are), then why would they not have permission to do so in a certain context? I have not yet seen an explanation that seemed adequate to me, or based upon accurate Scripture interpretation. (Not that I am the perfect judge of that, but, as a Protestant, have nothing else to go on, unless I simply accept someone else’s interpretation carte blanche.)
What is degrading to many is the suggestion that women are not competent (or allowed) to teach or lead men, especially in light of the fact that they are considered so to teach women and children. This would put women and children in a place of lesser importance than men.
To me it’s not a matter of whether or not women can fully exercise their gifts (although in many cases, this is what it’s about), but that it’s simply unavoidable that men will learn from women, and take leadership and oversight from them, whether in an actual hierarchical position or not. It also doesn’t make sense to me that there should be a different dynamic within the church, or a church organization, than without.
Then we have biblical examples where women do teach or direct men.
Though I believe in the complementarity of man and woman and the truth of the headship passages in Scripture, I cannot reconcile current comp. teachings with the whole of what I see in Scripture.
I think it is significant that women was made from man for man. And I think that both men and women are due the honor commensurate with this. I just am not sure exactly how, nor how to explain it.
I thought to respond earlier today, but the computer glitched and lost it in that “computerland.” Probably for the best as it was an off the cuff sort of response. If it shows up later, think of this as an addendum.
JK, I’ve heard that slavery/comp comparison before. . . no small wonder comps might take a little offense at it. I personally find it a rather stretched comparison for several reasons. . .
first, slavery is dominion without alternative. Unless your particular government has enacted laws forcing women to participate, this is not an equal comparison in my estimation.
That women choose this spiritual path is perhaps sometimes regretable, however, between them and God. That you disagree with the teaching and therefore feel compelled to set “those folks” right, well, you must then equally allow that they may take the same position against you.
As to whether comp is right or wrong. . . there are two time tested criteria for assessment. Either the actions themselves are wrong or the outcome of those actions are deplorable.
I have heard no adequate basis to assess that the actions of comp ideology are in action wrong–quite to the alternative, in that we all seem to agree that submission is scriptural command.
As far as the outcome, well, we have heard several intimate disclosures of how comp ideology can in fact be very beneficial. And deplorable instances seem to be generated out of human selfishness and not scriptural error.
I find no logical basis for throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In regard to Quakers opposing slavery. A little reading may clarify and erase common stereotypes of Anabaptist positions. Historically, Quakers are not so much against slavery as adamantly opposed to the degradation of humans. I will admit, however, that Quakers (eschewing dogma) are outrageously diverse in opinions and practice (from near Unitarian to almost Calvinist). So, I can not speak for the whole spectrum.
In the 1600-1700’s period, Quakers largely did not oppose slavery as practiced in the Americas. The type of slavery present then was strictly controlled with obligations to preserve the humanity of the servant. For example, you could not allow your slaves to starve and any slave master killing a slave (other than in self defense) risked being put to death for murder.
The slavery that arose in the 1800’s (America) was a totally different likeness. Humans were reduced to a status lower than cattle. Quakers protested by wearing medallions reaffirming the humanity of slaves so as to prick the conscience. It was more of a “human rights” issue.
Currently, Quakers are taking the same approach to increasing poverty in America as well as issues of immigration/fair trade/living wages/universal healthcare and more (check out the international Quaker website for programs). I think THESE sort of things better fit the tag of “slavery.”
Personally, I think it grossly unfair to parallel Comp with slavery. . .Comp is not short for compelled. To me, the comparison feels a bit like propaganda. . . and not very useful toward finding solutions here. I hope saying so will not offend you. As a Quaker I would prefer not to have the quality of my faith questioned with stereotyped assumptions. If you wish to learn more about Quaker opinions there are several very good forums online–just google “Quaker” they’ll welcome your inquiries. (I like Quakerinfo.com)
Lin, Thanks for the comment on the Muslim head covering. . .you are very apt.
Now, of course, I’m gonna set myself up to be called a ‘heretic’ yet again. You mention that you hope the Muslim woman is not asked about her faith due to the scarf. I thought that was sad.
You see, as a Quaker, I believe that God speaks to each of us individually and that He is not restrained by religion. The gospels note that there will be those who know Jesus without knowing the ‘historical” Christ. . . I know just such a Muslim man. My neighbor is a better Christian as a Muslim than many Christians I’ve known. I’ve been astonished how many times his words are close to those of Jesus without any experience (other than TV) of Christianity. He certainly knows and lives the manner of Christ–and, he has no problem with the historical Jesus, it’s just not something he knows about.
Personnally, if that Muslim woman has faith like my neighbor, I would prefer she share that faith than say turn the conversation over to certain hateful Christian ministers I’ve heard. . . I think the true Way has better opportunity to lead to Christ and salvation than that of someone who bears the title “Christian” but has no clue regarding the life and attitudes we are supposed to embody.
I feel the head covering thing (by no means compelled by my faith) is optional. . .each woman must search herself. However, I find it frustrating that some who choose not to wear it, may then, take a position of superiority based on the falacious notion that it in itself is degrading.
Really, we Christians are diverse in a diverse world. . . head covering here (Kansas) makes me more useful to God. If I lived somewhere in which a bald head was more useful, I’d probably consider shaving my head. If purple hair, then bring out the little bottle of dye.
It’s just my body–not my spirit.
Molly,
It seems to me your “enemy” is a very Quaker position. . . perhaps, you have just misnamed it. As I have said before, your heart speaks very strongly on this and it gives me wonderful chills. You see, I think your “enemy” is the degredation of women. . . absolutely on the mark, IMO.
However, that enemy is not in the ideology; rather, in the selfishness of the human heart. There is degredation in egal principles too–please, think on that. . . how many “stupid” choices are women offered and pressured toward on the basis of “equal rights?” Bondage sneaks into just about every ideology out there.
So, among the comps there are allies in this. . .but, perhaps this remains unseen to you as yet. Haven’t we both heard comps express concern over abuses of their own ideology??
I’ve heard forgiveness described as “unilaterally giving up the right to retaliate.” I would dearly love to see both sides of this conflict give up a few “rights” in order to come to agreement, if only on one or two small things.
I steadfastly maintain that there are correct things in this comp position. . . it would go a long way toward building a bridge if we could honestly identify them. How about starting with the benefits of a church environment that values submission in the first place?
Submission is learned through practicing it. . . more likely to be practiced in a church that places high value upon it. For the moment set aside whether that is practiced to any of our preferences. Is not the environment of submission a beneficial attempt in itself? Then, there, we have the first item on our list. Can you think of another?
Be careful if we bite and tear at each other. . .
“The gospels note that there will be those who know Jesus without knowing the ‘historical” Christ. . . “
I am not sure what you mean by this or by ‘know’ Jesus. Could you give me an example from the Gospels?
“I know just such a Muslim man. My neighbor is a better Christian as a Muslim than many Christians I’ve known. I’ve been astonished how many times his words are close to those of Jesus without any experience (other than TV) of Christianity.”
But he is lost and is in danger of eternal hell. There are truths that do divide us. There are only two kinds of people: The saved and the lost. And many of the lost are wonderful people. It is heart breaking. One of the finest, most upstanding men I know is an agnostic. My heart breaks over him!
“Personnally, if that Muslim woman has faith like my neighbor, I would prefer she share that faith than say turn the conversation over to certain hateful Christian ministers I’ve heard. . . I think the true Way has better opportunity to lead to Christ and salvation than that of someone who bears the title “Christian” but has no clue regarding the life and attitudes we are supposed to embody.”
Matthew 7 tells us that many who call the Name of the Lord are not saved and we need to understand that when we are embarassed by hateful Christians.
I am not sure how a Muslim woman sharing her faith can lead someone to Christ. I am embarassed by the hateful Christians, too, but the Holy Spirit opens hearts through the Gospel. The speaking of the Word. It is with love that we do it so that none will perish.
Her ‘religion’ is the way of bondage and eternal hell. I am sorry if that sounds hateful. I do not mean for it, too. It is simply true. I witness to Muslims all the time. They are familiar with ‘Issa’. And they love their check list religion of daily prayers, clothes, etc. Yet, they have NO assurance with Allah. They can only ‘hope’ for paradise and we all know it is hopeless.
“I feel the head covering thing (by no means compelled by my faith) is optional. . .each woman must search herself. However, I find it frustrating that some who choose not to wear it, may then, take a position of superiority based on the falacious notion that it in itself is degrading.”
Not degrading just confusing. We have liberty in Christ and if you believe that liberty is to wear a cover then so be it. But, I pray it does not send a message of ‘works’ or ‘piety’ that has nothing to do with the heart of stone being replaced by a heart of flesh. (Ezekial 36)
As a Christian, being Born Again happens on the inside and is manifest by what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5.
Blessings
This is an example of the ideology of complementarianism.
The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;
and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.
Bruce Ware
first, slavery is dominion without alternative.
This is maybe where we differ, possibly only because of very different experiences. In my experience, female subjection was not optional. If you believed God, you *had* to be subject. If you wanted to be a Satan follower (or a fleshly worldling), then you did not have to be subjected.
So in my experience, and I come from the “hard” comp (patriarchal, patriocentric, whatever word you want to use), it is very similar to the concept of slavery, in that female obedience to male authority is NON-OPTIONAL. It is not optional, in that world, to have a male mediate between you and Christ—it is simply how it is done.
These camps preach things such as: that God’s way means that it is sin for a woman to work outside of the home, that a woman is to look to her husband as her main and primary source of God’s guidance (in a way that is not reciprocal) which includes submitting to his views on theology and how to interpret the Scriptures, that a man stands in-between a woman and her God as the woman’s representative [that's what "head" means--federal headship], that daughters should not attend college (or that it’s at least a very questionable activity for women and only should happen in the most rarest of occasions), that a husband should be chosen by the father, that women who were missionaries like Amy Carmichael were in sin because they were not doing so under a male’s [father or husband] authority and thus they disgraced the Gospel, that a daughter should be a “helpmeet” in training to her father and dress as it pleases him and act however he says is pleasing, that athletics are a very questionable activity for girls because it teaches them to be assertive and aggressive which are masculine attributes, etc. This is a very strong movement within Christian homeschooling circles and is, unfortunately, growing more than it is shrinking, particularly in some of the more well-marketed groups.
THIS is the world I have come out of. I cannot help but think of it when I deal with complementarianism. I deeply apologize, on the one hand, for speaking from a different vantage point than many here, and yet I can’t apologize for it on the other hand, because it’s my background: there’s nothing that can be done for it. When I hear male heirarchy, these are the images that I draw from.
Btw, I so deeply appreciate many of the complementarian people here who vehemently deny the “godliness” of such teachings above. At the same time, I live and move around circles that DO practice these things, and they practice them upon the SAME foundation as the soft-complementarian beliefs…SAME interpretation of Genesis much of the time, etc… so sometimes I have a really hard time seeing the two extremes of complementarianism as seperate, and sometimes I don’t.
You see, I think your “enemy” is the degredation of women. . . absolutely on the mark, IMO.
Amen, sistah.
I do not believe that submission in and of itself is degrading. Rather, I believe submission is a Christian virtue. I believe learning how to bend my will to that of others is a STRENGTH (provided it is done so by my own active choice to submit). I do not believe it is good to tell half of the human race that they must bend their wills to the other half, by virtue of their gender, is a good thing. It can be used for good, only because God uses fallen things for good. But I don’t believe that it is good in and of itself.
I cannot tell you things that I think are good about complementarianism, because I do believe the above paragraph. The things that are good in it are things that are good, period. For example, submission is a good thing, the kind of submission Jesus practiced (the foot-washing kind, etc). But that is not a complementarian virtue, that is a *Christian* virtue. So in that sense, I guess I have to say that I don’t understand your question…? *wincing smile*
Much of that may have to with, as I said, my very negative experience in the halls of complementarian thought. I am certainly not at a place where I can claim objectivity. Maybe in time.
Warmly to all,
Molly
Bonnie,
” If women are as capable as men of teaching, preaching, and overseeing (as I believe they are), then why would they not have permission to do so in a certain context? I have not yet seen an explanation that seemed adequate to me, or based upon accurate Scripture interpretation.”
I agree with you. We women are just as capable as men.
I’ve been told “it’s because women are more easily deceived. They have to be protected”. Yeah. So what exactly does the seal of the HOLY SPIRIT do then?
“it’s because God wants men to lead”. I’m still looking for the place where it says that God wants men to lead.
But the passages are still there. Not the headship ones, but the ones in which Paul strictly forbids women from preaching and “exercising authority” over men. Authority comes from the Word of God. That tells me that God doesn’t want women preaching His Word to men, PUBLICLY.
It makes little sense. I agree. But it doesn’t make sense that God sent his Son to die on the cross for me.
I always go back to “My ways are not your ways, says the Lord…”
I don’t believe women are to be silent. Jesus didn’t believe that. He told the woman at the well to go and tell her relatives. He told Mary Magdalene to go tell the disciples he was alive.
” What is degrading to many is the suggestion that women are not competent (or allowed) to teach or lead men, especially in light of the fact that they are considered so to teach women and children. This would put women and children in a place of lesser importance than men.”
I’ll try to turn this around. While I still don’t know if I believe that women are not to preach to men ever, I still can’t embrace “full functional equality”.
Does God want men to bear the final responsibility of “feeding the sheep”?
Maybe one huge problem we have is that we practically revere pastors and teachers. Jesus said not to call anyone teacher. Matthew 23:
9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[a] 11The greatest among you will be your servant.
A pastor is worthy of his wages, and he does deserve honor, but he is a servant. He is there to feed the sheep.
The other aspect is the influence that women can be on men, and the huge influence that women can be on the future men. If women are teaching women, men are listening to their wives, and women are teaching children, women are laying the foundation and influencing the influential. Does that make sense?
It seems to fit the role of “helper”. The less seen, yet absolutely necessary. Not the one who gets the glory, but the one who shines when the man gets the glory.
I felt the same for a long time until I started to see the word “helper” as the person who is essential to the success of a man. A person of great influence.
It still doesn’t make sense, but it definitely takes away the degrading touch, at least to me.
Molly,
yeah (grinning) we’re probably pretty close to the same on this, just different methods. I guess on the preaching part of it, I’m a little. . . ambibalent??
I’ve gotten out there on Youtube and watched some sermons from the fringes. . . I mean really, one guy preaches that Joel Osteen is the Antichrist, another, decided that “God told him” that the U.S. wil further decline unless men start standing up when they pee–I kid you not; based on old testament “he that pisseth against the wall.”
There are nuts all over. . . simple prolificacy of abuse does not mar overall truths, it does however, muddy them badly. Pulling down all the petty nonsense piece by piece is a waste of time. . . rather, I would (once again) encourage you to full speed ahead toward offering options to women in these congregations–real, lasting change only comes from within. Slower? yes, . . . remember the small, insistent snowflake–in time, it can shut down an entire country.
Lin,
It would take an entire blog to go through the gospels and list all the times the historical/spiritual divide is intimated. (I would be willing to write a book draft–any publishers interested???
My favorite however, is Luke 12:1-12. You know, this one is a great “stump the minister” section.
The provenience of the piece is between the Mary/Martha story, instruction in prayer (& nature of God), and a pretty nasty rant against “religion.” On the other end, are parables warning against materialism and things that distract us from serving God.
The teaching Christ gives is to “the masses” who include all the outcasts of the day. . . the “worthless”–compared to sparrows sold for mere pennies (I find poor and homeless in the U.S. particularly identify with this section).
Now here’s the interesting thing, Jesus mentions twice (vs8-9, and 10) the criteria for being recognized/received by God. They seem to contradict. The first one says if you fail to confess Christ you will not be confessed, the second says if you slander Christ it will be forgiven, but, if you slander the Spirit (of Christ) it is unforgivable blasphemy. . . . What??? Was Jesus confused? Did he lose his train of thought in the noise of the crowd? Did Luke fail to properly copy edit his manuscript?
No, clearly Jesus is drawing a distinction between His “Way” in the world and his body (historical person). You know, when I say to my kids, “Sorry, I can’t accomodate you right now, I’ve got a life.” They intuitively understand that I am not discussing the flesh and blood, breathing, operation of my body–I’m using the colloquialism for my interactions and attitudes in the world. Funny, when Jesus says “I am the Life” we somehow ignore the colloquialism and stick to this temporary body He had. . . it can rob a lot from faith.
I’m not going to go through the rest of the New Testament and pull out every verse that indicates emphasis on the spiritual Way over the Christian title. . . start with I John and maybe James. . . that’ll give you quite a few. I remind you that Christ himself, upon His resurrection, instructed Thomas that there would be those who had not seen who would believe–please don’t tell me that was about nail scars in His hands. Sigh.
Is there any language in which God is not fluent? Is there any culture He does not know? Has God ever disregarded an solitary soul on this planet–look to the scripture, MEN do those things, not GOD.
And let me ask you further. . . when the Bible says that God is not willing that ANY should perish. . . do you actually believe that there is a human construct that could prevent the Will of GOD??
Truly, over the past 2,000 years the church has turned itself into EXACTLY the same machine that Jesus railed at in the Gospels. . . Hmmmmm, my Muslim neighbor is a sparrow in your eyes. . . but, in the eyes of my God (via the words of Jesus, the Son of God) he has far more value than that. And, though he does not know the “proper route” that you prescribe (a man), he does in fact know and live the route prescribed by Christ (Son of God). I wonder which route has more credibility with God?
Salvation comes from calling upon/receiving Christ–that is not the historical christ, elsewise all someone would need for redemption is a good religious studies class.
It is the manner and spirit of Christ that brings redemption. . . and that manner is not limited by human title placed upon it. An infant does not know the correct word for their momma or pappa. . . and yet, do parents reject babies for this “error?”–why then, would you impute God to have less mercy or patience? Luke 11:10-13.