I was raised as a complementarian. Our pastors taught complementarianism from the Bible. It was also taught at my Bible school.
I suggest that one of the main reasons, perhaps the main reason, why complementarianism is so compelling to conservative Christians is that, according to their teaching, it seems to be what is taught in the Bible if we take the plain sense of the words as we have them translated in our English Bibles. In this post I am describing my own experience with complementarian pastors and Bible teachers. In this post I am not claiming that I am describing the strongest argument for complementarianism. Rather, I am describing what the complementarians with whom I grew up and by whom I was taught use as their strongest argument. This is an important difference. I am observing and describing what I am familiar with. I am not claiming that what I am describing is or is not the most compelling argument for complementarianism.
It takes work for evangelical egalitarians to find a different interpretation of those passages which seem to teach that in a marriage only the woman is to submit to her husband. He is her head (and head sounds like a boss or authority), as Christ is the head of the church. And we clearly know that Christ has authority over his church.
And 1 Tim. 2:12 says that Paul did not want women to teach or usurp authority over men, but to learn in silence. What could be clearer?
I respect the hermeneutics of taking Scripture seriously and believing what seems to be the plain sense of its words. I am naturally skeptical when someone says, “Ah, but that’s not what those words really mean.”
I want to honor my complementarian Christian brothers and sisters for taking the Bible seriously. I honor them for taking it at its word, the plain sense of its words.
It’s not easy coming to a different understanding of the key passages which seem so clearly to teach complementarianism. It can feel like a betrayal of “true” Christianity which we conservatives want to have based solely on what the Bible itself teaches.
It has been my impression that complementarians consider that the hermeneutics of taking the plain sense of key passages of the Bible that address gender issues is their most compelling reason to be a complementarian. Other reasons which have been suggested, such as that women are more prone to be deceived, more prone to misunderstand the Bible and start cults, born to follow rather than lead, designed to be supportive rather than have independent thoughts and goals are not held by all complementarians. And exceptions to these other reasons are easily found, although for the strongest believers in them, the exceptions prove the rule. Those women who are assertive and enjoy being leaders must not be submissive enough, must not be willing to obey the clear teaching of Scripture.
Do you agree that taking the plain sense of Scripture is the most compelling reason to be a complementarian?
If you are not a complementarian, how do you respond to the claim that you have been drawn into misunderstanding the key passages that teach complementarianism?
Like you, when I first became a believer it sure seemed obvious to me what the plain meaning of Scripture on gender meant, especially as that was what my church elders taught. I did not even SUSPECT there was another way to understand the gender verses. After all, God was not trying to trick me with Scripture, the translators were trying to be faithful and I had a pretty good grasp of English!
Yes, there may have been a few things to be wary about, I knew the Jehovah’s Witnesses had their own translation, which taught that Jesus was “a god” and not part of a Trinity and Roman Catholics used a different translation, but since I was evangelical prot, I just accepted the NIV and if I REALLY wanted to dig in, I could use the NASB as my elders did.
The thing that demolished this paradigm for me forever was when David Instone-Brewer pointed out in a book that the primary meaning (the plain meaning) of some text HAD to be the way an original reader would have understood it. In other words, it was possible for me to “teleport” text out of its original context and misunderstand it. He then gave examples of how I (and many others) had done exactly that.
I was raised in traditional Catholic understandings of how men and women were to relate in life. Went to Catholic school as a child. As a girl I learned that my place in the family was to take care of everyone else. I took care of my younger brother and sister, cooked for them, cleaned the house, did the yardwork, etc. I didn’t have much time for myself. As I observed how things were, it was not compelling, and I eventually left the church at 12, convinced that God was good but that people did not live for Him. However, by that time I had been thoroughly subdued in my person, completely convinced that the only place for a woman was to please a man. In all honesty I do believe that this training is what set me up for the many years of abuse and sexual harm that I endured.
When the Lord finally got me to Him and I began new life as a Christian, loved of God, I had a ravenous thirst for the Scriptures. Since the Catholic church had not really made any efforts to encourage reading of Scriptures for oneself, reading Scripture was a new adventure for me. And I had no traditional readings ringing in my head. Reading the gospels first, painted a picture of acceptance by Jesus of all people, especially rejected women. When I came to the difficult passages that the plain reading of sounded restrictive, I struggled with the opposite pictures of women who were used of God (Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe, Prisca, Junia, etc.). I argued with God a lot clinging to the traditional view of women as subservient. But it was God, the OT, learning to read in context, understanding cultures, comparing Scripture with other Scripture, and searching the Greek and Hebrew that led me to understand that God is able and desirous of using everyone who is willing, and there is no weakness of our flesh that is too strong for God to overcome. Men and women were meant to complement one another, not dominate or control. We all are meant to grow and mature into the wholeness of the man Christ Jesus and do the works that He did.
David Instone-Brewer’s book Divorce And Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities (one of the authors of Complegalitarian has my copy on loan) makes a compelling case that the church, and especially the Roman Catholic Church, has misunderstood what Jesus said about marriage, divorce and remarriage for 1900 years. That’s “tradition” for you. ;^)
Here, however, is a rebuttal to Instone-Brewer’s argument, though I don’t know how valid it is: http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/Critique.html
Nota bene: Richard Elliott Friedman in his Commentary on the Torah says re: Exodus 21:10 – “hygiene. … A third possibility is the traditional view that this refers to sex, but there is no evidence in support of this.” IIRC, Instone-Brewer claims the three things a husband must provide a wife, based on this verse, are food, apparel and sexual relations (which Friedman translates as “hygiene”).
Kostenberger has interacted with Instone-Brewer on his blog biblicalfoundations.org in an essay entitled “Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce” 10/19/07 and I think Instone-Brewer has his own blog as well – perhaps he responds to his critics and their critiques.
McFall’s “rebuttal” does not engage DIB’s scholarship. If effect, he is simply saying that DIB does not read the Bible as he does and therefore DIB is wrong. This is not a real argument.
Kostenberger at least tries in engage DIB’s scholarship in some sense, but misunderstands part of it and therefore makes DIB’s arguments weaker than they actually are. Again, a Berean will need to actually READ DIB for themselves and not expect an opponent to present the author’s arguments.
I cover all this in my 9 45-minute session teachings on Marriage and Divorce, found here: http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=279.0
DIB discusses his results in summary form here:
http://www.playmobible.org/videos.html
Kostenberger’s mistakes are:
1. He misses that Mat 19:3 sets the context for all that follows. Jesus is responding to the question about the Hillel “Any Matter” divorce and not a general question about divorce. So Jesus did not discuss Ex 21:10 as he was not asked about it.
2. He misses that Jesus corrects 7 misinterpretations of the Pharisees on marriage and divorce, so his silence in the case of the other interpretations is more compelling than it might appear. In summary (see DIB or my teaching for details), the Pharisees taught 8 things about marriage and 8 things about divorce; Jesus was asked about 1 thing about divorce (Hillel’s “Any Matter” divorce); but before he could answer it he needed to correct some other misunderstandings and ended up correcting 7 of the 16 things Pharisees taught. (In other words, Jesus was not reticent to correct the Pharisees, so if he disagreed with something else they taught, that would have been a great time to correct it.)
3. He misses that adultery is NOT the sole exception allowing divorce as taught by Jesus, rather adultery is the only valid reason mentioned in Deu 24:1, per the question.
What can I say?
The church I was “saved” in was very Comp.
But I saw the frustration of the pastor’s wife as she struggled with her secondary role and what exactly submission meant for her.
My second evangelical church was Egal. But it had severe issues of its own. Yet, it opened my eyes to the possiblility of Egal existing with its husband/wife copastoring situation.
Since then, when my husband pastored, I had many opportunities to preach with his blessing. The response to my preaching was good, sometimes better than to his. And I enjoyed it. I do not say this with any arrogance. My husband is a gifted musician and can lead praise and worship a good as anyone I know, even the famous P&W leader on CDs. Plus, he is far more comfortable with a guitar in his hands than with sermon notes on a pulpit. Leading worship is like breathing for him.
I can lead worship, but preaching in like breathing to me.
Yet there is so much pressure that the man must be the pastor and the pastor’s wife must play the piano that our dynamic wasn’t readily accepted.
Long story short. My husband is no longer interested in church work and plays in bars now.
And I’ve gone back and forth between asking God to take the desire to preach away and if not, then what the heck am I supposed to do with it.
Some comps might say that it is not the Lord calling me to preach at all.
Others might say that it is the Lord’s calling, but only to women and children.
So that leaves me with the issue of finding that “line” in the sand of what is acceptable for a woman to do verses what is not acceptable.
Talk to different people and the line moves up and down.
So, actually my search in this is to find out first of all, if there is a line to begin with, or if it is an imaginary line that insecure men and women have drawn to protect their comfort zone.
And second, if there is a line, where does God say that it is.
I don’t want to believe in a line that God doesn’t believe in and to be guilty of limiting myself in areas God has not called me to limit myself.
On the other hand, if there really is a line, far be it for me to cross it.
I’d rather be a door keeper in the house of the Lord than to dwell in the tent of the wicked.
Drat, this got a whole lot longer than I wanted.
But the point is, I don’t know if and where the line is. I don’t know if I’m comp or egal. But the argument is very important to me because sometimes His words burn inside of me so that I have to stop studying the Bible from time to time to get it to stop.
So the specific answer to the question is, If the plain reading of women keep silent in the church is true, why do I desire to speak and testify and preach?
Which is lying? The desire that burns in my gut, or the way that passage and others are translated/interpreted?
So I keep seeking God in prayer, Bible reading, and the fellowship of other seekers… like you folks.
I have responded to Eric’s post, but it is awaiting moderation as it has some links.
Mara, I’m so sorry to hear about your husband’s situation. Many have been wounded by Christianeze expectations. It is very sad.
You might be encouraged to know that my present pastor is very like your husband. Worship is like breathing to him and he is awesome at it. We use video’s for a lot of preaching. Pastor does preach now and then. And also a couple other men preach too. It works. Our pastor does what he does best, along with shepherding and organizing, and others fill in what is lacking.
There is still hope for your husband returning to church using his gifts. Also, husband and wife teams are becoming much more popular these days. There are many more women preaching and teaching in churches than there used to be, although in most every century there were women being used of God, although men didn’t think it significant enough to note it in most writings.
Do you agree that taking the plain sense of Scripture is the most compelling reason to be a complementarian?
I’ve seen many variations of this thought. I believe that comps honestly believe that a plain reading of Scripture reveals compism and they are left scratching their heads as to how people can twist Scripture the way they do.
I was raised with the comp assumption, but when I read the Bible for myself, I noticed that the “plain reading of Scripture:
1. sometimes contradicts itself
2. sometimes makes no sense (think “saved through childbearing”)
3. doesn’t always reveal the moral or point of the story (I remember my initial horror at the glib description of the concubine being divided into 12 pieces)
I guess that’s why there’s such a thing as theology.
When I started delving into the gender issue, I noticed that, rather than depending on merely the plain sense of Scripture, comps must go to great lengths to explain that:
1. Deborah was not really judging men
2. Priscilla was able to teach the confused man only because she was “under the authority of her husband”
3. Junia was not a woman; no, wait – she was a woman, but not “really” an apostle
When I read comp theologians arguing these and other points, I started to doubt that they were willing to flex their paradigm to fit Scripture – wherever that might lead.
A side note on the importance of humility if there can be any sort of true debate:
I attended Piper’s church for a number of years. I feel that what I saw as his sincerity and humility made compism very appealing. But as time has gone on, I have noticed in the comp movement less and less humility and more and more arrogance in the guise of defending the truth and rescuing our culture. For people like me, who are busily investigating Scripture, apologetics, and OT and NT cultures, it is very off-putting to hear blanket statements that any deviation from complementarianism undermines the authority of Scripture, or must employ exegetical gymnastics, etc. All that when complementarianism isn’t obvious from Scripture to me!
I say this because the arrogance of some of the people I knew personally is part of what started me on the path toward questioning comp assumptions.
Wayne,
Thanks for this post. But I don’t agree that its compatibility with scripture is the strongest argument in favor of complementarianism.
(1) Holy kissing, (2) wearing headscarves, and (3) thinking of celibacy for the kingdom of God as preferable to matrimony are also plain sense teachings of scripture. But I don’t see many people going for those things.
John 13:14-15 almost certainly describes (4) footwashing as an institution of Jesus to be repeated by his disciples. Some early Christians made it into something they did very regularly, and it is practiced in specific settings among more traditional Christians to this day. But most Christians ignore the passage and if they know it, brush off its literal observance as non-essential.
1 Timothy 5:3-16 has all kinds of things to say about what (5) widows are supposed to do and not do, and how the church is to regulate the whole. I don’t know of many Christians who follow the plain sense meaning of this passage.
(6) James says the sick should be anointed with oil (5:14). A lot of Christians don’t do that either.
All of the above things are taught in scripture, but most Christians do not feel bound by the plain sense of the passages in question. Most Christians assume, and I think rightly, that the passages do not have to be followed to the letter. They can be adapted to a changed cultural situation, or, with respect to a non-essential detail, simply left to one side.
There are all kinds of other things that can be supported from scripture. (6) Complementarianism is one of those things. So is (7) slavery and (8) the teaching that the giving and receiving of homosexual love is incompatible with being a Christian.
On these last issues, over the last couple of centuries, Christians have gotten their knickers in a knot in a way earlier Christians would have found quite surprising. What once was obvious, rightly or wrongly, is clearly not obvious any more.
It is a stretch to say that in the above numbered examples, Christians who upheld and still uphold these things do not have scripture on their side. On a basic level, scripture is on their side.
On the other hand, the application made in any of the above examples to current cultural realities may or may not be correct. There is, presumably, room for legitimate disagreement in all of the above cases – or not; all anyone can do is state an opinion on the matter; that’s why I treat the same three examples together Webb does.
So how does one decide which practices and teachings numbered above remain valid, and which don’t?
One possible move, that advocated by Don, is to suggest that Paul and Peter were abolitionists and egals in their thinking. Don and other “biblical” egals claim that scripture precludes complementarianism. However, many egals think otherwise.
According to these egals, Paul and Peter take steps forward in the direction of patriarchy qualified by Christian content, but it remains patriarchy. NT scholar Carolyn Osiek is an example of such an egal (see my blog for relevant quotes of her understanding).
To my mind, there are three factors that play into a decision in favor of embracing complementarianism:
(1) Personal comfort level. There really are a lot of people, men and women, who feel that complementarianism fits who they are. I’m not talking about versions of complementarianism which are way out of sync with current cultural realities, but versions which are somewhat but not radically counter-cultural. Think Gary Thomas and Emerson Eggerichs. BTW, EE’s L & R is one of the top ten best-selling Christian books out there right now.
(2) Compatibility with scripture, which is not the same thing as a plain sense reading. Evangelicals avoid a plain sense reading of scripture whenever it suits them, if by a plain sense reading is meant a reading that expects Paul, Peter, and James, in occasional letters to churches and individuals, to give Christians an eternally valid blueprint on how to structure everything touched upon. A little honesty, please. But hey, if complementarianism is not precluded by scripture, and (1) is also the case, compism begins to look very attractive.
(3) The church one goes to teaches it. The same church which nurtures you in a thousand other ways. BTW, this is how it works in my church, which is egalitarian. Once you have had the experience of seeing strong healthy egalitarian marriages with your own eyes, once you have had the experience of being blessed by the preaching of a female presbyter, it is hard to go back.
In my case, I have nothing to go back to. I grew up egal. I’m quite aware of its weaknesses, as well as its strengths.
BTW, plenty of comps find themselves in a symmetrical situation. They have nothing to complain about, except the usual things: compism has weaknesses and not just strengths, too.
It is my understanding that for the egals currently commenting on these threads, if a person concludes that complementarianism is for him or her based on the criteria just outlined, his or her choice is to be respected.
I’m a suspicious egal, so I want to make sure that comps under my care are giving adequate play to 1 Cor 13, Rom 12, the principle of mutual consent, and so on. But I equally want to make sure that egals under my care are doing the same. Talking the talk and walking the walk are two very different things.
Good answer, John. It’s very true that those who “follow the Bible” pick and choose which parts of the Bible they will follow and how they will follow the parts that they do. We can appeal to an over-riding theological framework and that can help us decide which parts of the Bible are relevant for us to directly apply today or not. But theological frameworks have their weaknesses as well, not the least of which is that they are framed by fallible humans who try their best to get Scripture (and church tradition, if that is allowed to enter the equation) to agree with itself and make sense.
I still respect those who believe they are right because they believe they are following what the Bible teaches. But it has become clearer to me over the years that a theological or ideological system which has been “nailed down” and which considers that those who do not follow the same system to somehow be less biblical is in danger of closing itself off to the full truth as only God knows it.
It is no wonder that we Christians are divided over some issues. It’s not simply because we are fallible humans. Sometimes it is because there is more than one possible way to interpret parts of the Bible, however sincere we might be and however strongly we believe our hermeneutic to lead us to correct interpretations.
I *hope* that these exchanges have contributed something positive to blunt the divisiveness which gender issues have engendered (pun intended).
[...] a comment » Reading John Hobbin’s recent post and the post at Compligalitarian, I must say that I don’t care for “plain sense” arguments. Appeals to the plain [...]
John wrote:
I don’t agree that its compatibility with scripture is the strongest argument in favor of complementarianism.
And I agree with you, John. It seems that so very often I am not able to communicate clearly enough what I actually am intending to mean in my posts. (Of course, that gives you good fuel for blog posts, but I find it very frustrating not to communicate adequately.) I have just revised my post to make it clearer that I was not presenting “the strongest argument in favor of complementarianism,” but, rather, was trying to present what the complementarians I grew up with consider the strongest argument in favor of complementarianism.
Wayne wrote in his original post: “seems to be what is taught in the Bible if we take the plain sense of the words as we have them translated in our English Bibles.”
This is a very important point. When we use a translation we are assuming the translators KNOWS what the text means and are trying their best to put that meaning into another language. But when you study the area you realize that there are real questions in some cases about what some text meant and in some cases it is a judgment call.
I wish there was a way for translators to indicate their confidence in their specific choice. Or give a range where doubt exists. Variant readings are a help in this.
Don wrote:
I wish there was a way for translators to indicate their confidence in their specific choice. Or give a range where doubt exists.
Excellent idea, Don. As you know, this is done already for degree of confidence in textual variants among manuscripts of the Greek text of the N.T. Perhaps some editions of the Hebrew Bible do it also.
Arguments in favor of complementarianism…
In an excellent post, Wayne Leman suggests that the strongest argument in favor of complementarianism is its conformity to the plain sense of Scripture. I don’t agree. It seems to me that the plain sense of scripture is set aside rather often by beli…
BTW,
This post has created a blogstorm. It would be nice if all relevant trackbacks were provided.
For example, Damian Caruana has posted in response but links only to my post and that of Mike Aubrey. Suzanne McCarthy has posted, but links only to my post.
I am working on being sensitive toward comps, someone who I respect said that the comp view is actually counterculture and he and his wife are often put on the defensive.
But I am very glad to have journeyed away from the complimentarian view toward egalitarianism because of the abuses and excesses I experienced in an old church that held very tight views on gender roles.
Of course, nice friendly discussion seems to be helpful for all. I’m glad to have found venues for discussion such as this.
I wish there was a way for translators to indicate their confidence in their specific choice. Or give a range where doubt exists. Variant readings are a help in this.
Good commentaries, which usually include the commentator’s translation, often do this.
‘It takes work for evangelical egalitarians to find a different interpretation of those passages which seem to teach that in a marriage only the woman is to submit to her husband. He is her head (and head sounds like a boss or authority), as Christ is the head of the church. And we clearly know that Christ has authority over his church.
And 1 Tim. 2:12 says that Paul did not want women to teach or usurp authority over men, but to learn in silence. What could be clearer?
I respect the hermeneutics of taking Scripture seriously and believing what seems to be the plain sense of its words. I am naturally skeptical when someone says, “Ah, but that’s not what those words really mean.”’
I would like to respond specificaly to what was last said but also intertwine that with the previous:
What do we find when we read 1 Tim 2 in it’s original language? Does the original passage only sound like Paul is saying ‘women’ when he is writing a prohibiton or do the combined letters ‘w-o-m-a-n’ hit a singular note? Is a singular note plain or complicated? I guess it depends on what one hears. Does it seem plainly singluar or do we hear a plural ’sense’? If we hear a plural sense, why? What does ‘w-o-m-a-n’ mean? Does it mean singular or plural? ‘Woman’ in context of the passage vv11-14 remains singular.
…I hope my dotted i’s and crossed t’s are acceptable.
If we are going to change ONE letter from ‘a’ to ‘e’ (woman to women) then we, I think ought to be sure that it is a inspired one.
‘I want to honor my complementarian Christian brothers and sisters for taking the Bible seriously. I honor them for taking it at its word, the plain sense of its words.’
Again, change a letter, change a word, change a word, and change the sense. I think we ought to handle the inspired very carefuly.
‘It has been my impression that complementarians consider that the hermeneutics of taking the plain sense of key passages of the Bible that address gender issues is their most compelling reason to be a complementarian.’
I don’t think that we truly have gotten PLAIN yet. I know plain. Color me.
”if we take the plain sense of the words as we have them translated in our English Bibles.”
It seems to me that there is some confusion as to what the “plain sense” of a word is. It is really not that difficult to cut out a few words from a sentence in a paragraph (a flow of thought), and attach a “plain sense” to them that is contrary to the sense intended by the author. Thus claiming ‘plain sense’ isn’t claiming much.
I think some of the confusion lies in our reliance upon translation from original language and our understanding of the nuiances of the culture of the time.
[Enjoying listening in on this conversation]…
Is that you blowing bubbles Molleth?
Application.
Here may be part of the rub. The first century Greco-Roman world was composed of a radically different set of social institutions. Thus there were relationships such as slaves-masters, subjects-masters (this is far from democracy), children-parents (where unreserved obedience was expected past “adulthood”), and of course, patriarchy (not Piper’s version). Paul worked within these less than ideal structures but that does not inherently “legitimize” their ongoing and universal existence. And in fact (clear) implications of the gospel and eschatology guide us out of many of these, less than ideal, social structures and into healthier ones (cf. polygamy in the OT). Interestingly, many pastors and scholars defended slavery in the states with the argument of the “plain” meaning of Scripture. Sometimes Biblical interpretation is hard work.
I believe you have some good thoughts Wayne on how much out community affects our biblical interpretive lens. I also grew up in a Complamentarian home, church, Bible College, and now seminary. Until recently my “plausibility structures” (Newbign) have only allowed this view to “make sense”. Two things are helpful for both sides to consider:
1. How much has my sociological surroundings affected my views on the comp or egal?
2. Have I seriously studied the opposing view?
[...] I will need to comment further. In particular, I read this post by John Hobbins that references a post by Wayne Leman regarding complementarianism and the “plain sense” of scripture. I want to distinguish [...]
Wayne, I respond to the last question of your post by saying that I have studied the Scriptures closely and concluded that they do not support a ruling hierarchy based solely upon sex, nor certain hard-and-fast differences between the sexes such as that men are born to lead and women to follow.
Correction: a ruling hierarchy between the sexes in marriage
Bonnie,
I agree with you that the plain reading of the passages relating to marriage, in context, don’t describe a hierarchy.
Moreover, complementarians have played around with the words and have “adverbialized” the verbs found in the text, adding verbs that aren’t there, so in the complementarian marriage men lead lovingly (instead of just loving) and women follow submissively (because respect and submission are understood as within a hierarchy).
They ignore V. 21 of Ephesians 5, or they interpret it in ways that don’t fit to the full counsel of the New Testament, such as submission being rendered only to some which are “in authority” over onself, and not to those who are not, and so on. That’s anything but plain reading.
They add to the text, and they read through the lenses of their own assumptions.
Further, a complementarian marriage relies on the wife pursuing unity, not the husband.
Extreme complementarian teachers ignore the priesthood of all believers, the presence of the Holy Spirit, even in saved women, that would procure an antidote to their “more easily deceived nature”. (Why don’t you read about men’s natural inclination to sin knowingly?)
Within the church, I think the greatest error is the belief that pastors, elders, teachers and deacons’ main role is to “exercise authority” over the congregation, when I believe it’s clear that church is meant to be a body in which we all serve each other with our gifts to the extent of our maturity, and we are all there to help each other mature.
Everyone should be discerning, everyone should be studying the Word, and those who are “at the top” should be serving all the more, not wielding power.
I think a plain reading of Scripture could lead to understanding that God wants men to carry the main responsibility in the church, that they should be the ones preaching and teaching, and that women are not to teach and preach.
But as someone else said, Complementarians are not practicing everything as it would be understood from a plain reading of the English translation.
Ps.
I think maybe my post should be toned down… I only meant to say I don’t believe Complementarian teaching is based on the plain reading of the texts.
Like egalitarians, they read the problematic texts through the lenses of their convictions (sorry, my son keeps talking to me and I’m struggling with getting my thoughts out properly!)
I didn’t mean my post to be an attack to complementarianism.
“If you are not a complementarian, how do you respond to the claim that you have been drawn into misunderstanding the key passages that teach complementarianism?” —-Wayne
Raised complementarian, I did not think that it was possible to interpret Scripture in any other way. So when I studied egal claims, “to see if such things be so,” I was floored.
Previously, I’d studied complementarian articles and books *against* egalitarian claims, and found the egal claims wanting. I was certain that egalitarians boldly negated Scripture in order to support their own ideology—obviously a profoundly unbiblical ideology. When I began reading egalitarian authors on their own, my views began to change.
But before that happened (and quite possibly in order for that to happen), I initially went to Genesis 1-3 to see if I could read in the non-hierarchal view that I’d heard the egals espouse.
I spent a few weeks carefully studying those chapters, stunned. Words like “help meet for him,” a concept I believed “plainly” showed that woman was made for serving the man in a subordinate position, etc, came to mean something altogether different.
I realized that the hierarchy I’d always “plainly seen” there was something I was reading into the text vs. something that the text plainly communicated. I realized I was, as a complementarian, guilty of the very thing I accused the egalitarians of: reading my assumptions into Scripture.
This experience awakened my interest in studying egalitarian claims from the egalitarian’s themselves (vs. through the lens of Grudem/Piper interpreting and then denouncing egal claims for me). I went from someone on the fence, not sure of what position to take, to someone who claims the label egalitarian.
To be sure, some things from my own personal experience have helped this claim: my situation is one where a husband “leading” the home will wreak havoc, and did. So one could say I became egal only under duress, changed my views due to circumstances and not true conviction… Very dear complementarian friends of ours have leveled this charge at me.
Yet it’s important to remember that I remained complementarian/patriarchal for 8-9 years, despite great personal cost, specifically because I believed it to be God’s way, something to be obeyed in spite of circumstances.
It was only when I realized that I would actually go insane or become very ill (not a joke) that I had to investigate the claims of the “other” side to see if there was anything legit there that I could hang on to. If I had not found anything, I am quite sure that I would have continued to remain a firm complementarian, straight into death, even if it would have killed me (“an elephant’s faithful, 100 percent”).
When I found the egalitarian claims to be well supported by Scripture, I knew that leaving complementarian thought was inevitable. My own personal situation made the “husband:leader, wife:follower” model extremely destructive and dangerous. For that reason especially, I found egalitarianism wonderful.
But purely personal reasons were also included. I’m the type of woman who would have gone to seminary, had I thought that was an option for me. I love theology, I love studying, and I love speaking. I’m not sure those doors can be open to me now, where I’m at and what I have to be concerned with, but just knowing that it’s not sinful to love those things is good enough for me right now. I spent my entire life, previously, thinking there must be something terribly wrong with me for not fitting into the submissive woman model, and I worked very hard to squeeze myself into that box, despite the obvious fact that it wasn’t me. Egalitarianism provided me with the space to be able to be myself without thinking that my love for theology and teaching was rebellion against God.
Long winded ramble over…
Molly,
Thanks for your long winded ramble.
I started questioning whether God actually meant that a wife is to just follow her husband when I found myself in situations in which following or supporting my husband was like following him off a cliff (along with three children) or giving him the final shove off a cliff.
That’s when I started thinking about what “help meet” means, and “discovered”, with the help of others, that maybe my personality is not faulty in itself. Maybe my opinionated self is not BAD and just plain sinful, but maybe God made me that way and I just have to find a positive way (lead by the Holy Spirit) to express that opinion and stand by it when I know it’s right.
I believe that many complementarian teachers have a picture of harmony and amazing mutual servanthood in mind when they write about “servant leadership” and “beautiful, intelligent, willing submission”. For me, it read like someone tying my hands behind my back and telling me that ’s what God wants for me.
As others have pointed out, I believe it is essential to study both sides.
To reitirate what Don has seconded (!) … I couldn’t say enough about the value of reading the other side’s own words. Sadly, it seems easy even for intelligent people to be blind – especially when we are taking an “intelligent” person’s word for it regarding the other side.
To that end, it would be interesting to see a list of what each side considers the best and clearest essential reading.
Returning to something Molly said, it is often the case that switching from comp to egalism is something sinners do, with egalism serving as a rifugio peccatorum = a refuge of sinners.
It’s important to make sense out of such a switch on an intellectual plane, but I doubt that is the core experience.
This is how I respond to the observation that egalism, for someone who has suffered through a bad comp marriage, is for sinners. I simply say: it’s true. That’s what makes egalism gospel in such cases.
That Christianity is for sinners is what always bothered a lot of people about Christianity in the first place. Both Torah-observant Jews and enlightened pagans noticed that Christianity tended to attract the trash of the world. The damaged goods of this world.
Fine. I am part of that trash. If I can’t see myself in the publican and the sinner, I’m not a Christian anyway.
If someone who has had very negative experiences in complementarianism finds a sense of forgiveness and the possibility of a new beginning only within an egal setting, that is a terrible judgment on compism as she or he knows it. It’s as if compism is not Christian in any meaningful sense.
On the other hand, it is essential not to make sweeping generalizations. I once gave the example of my parents who were attending a mild comp church when my mother had an affair and kicked my father out of the house. The church leadership in its wisdom relieved my father of his duties as a deacon but not my mother of her duties as a deaconess. How was this possible? Attention to detail. Knowing the specifics of a situation intimately. Things are not always what they seem. My father was the one greater at fault, something he came to recognize. My mother went on to marry the person she had the affair with. My father went on to marry an African-American schoolteacher and became a deacon all over again, the only white deacon, and only Republican, in a black Baptist church. Served my father right. Would that God’s judgment =grace work itself out always as beautifully as this in the lives of people.
A key question here is whether “authority” and “hierarchy” are essentially negative concepts. Egals who use the terms as if they were, end up throwing egalitarianism into disrepute. Authority *on behalf of* and domain-based hierarchies are absolutely essential aspects of life across the board, in the workplace, in a marriage, in family life, in government, in the army, and on and on.
Egals too often come across as being against hierarchy per se and seem to think of authority as a negative per se. I just want to point out how dangerous in its own way such a one-sided approach is.
A litmus test for an egal: exemplify ways in which a husband does well to exercise authority on behalf of, even in the absence of consent, his wife and family.
A litmus test for a comp: exemplify ways in which a wife does well to exercise authority on behalf of, even in the absence of consent, her husband and family.
The spouses I have seen that leave compism do so because of abuse; it is an attempt to establish healthy boundaries that drives them to egalism; not that any framework is perfect; but they see the egal framework as inherently safer and the comp teaching as facilitating the abuse in THEIR specific case, with 2 sinners instantiating the framework.
Another point is that no one has to do any supposed “litmus test” procedure; they simply need to act in faith trying to please God.
The more each party in a couple reflect Jesus the less a marriage framework even matters , as I see it. But, on the other hand, the less one or both parties reflect Jesus the more important the framework is; so my recommendation is to choose wisely.
Don,
Happy New Year!
To what you said, which I agree with, I would add that young people with an egal upbringing who choose complementarianism are often looking for more structure than they experienced.
The tests I gave are not meant to replace your wise emphasis: acting in faith trying to please God.
The tests are meant to get people thinking about aspects of their framework of choice which are often overlooked.
Hi John,
The only example I can think of that fits your egal litmus test is an emergency, when one acts to preserve life.
Were you thinking of something else?
Your example donjo fits with the stronger helping the weaker, which should IMO cross all structures of any sort including gender and age, as it fits the primary mandate of loving your neighbor as yourself.
I’ve yet to figure out John’s examples, unless he is referring to secular egalism and a lack of respect. Biblical equality and respectful mutuality are not the same as secular demands for equal rights (although some have validity) or ideas of same-as issues. And I don’t think they should be compared.
Myself, I’ve not been around a marriage that fit his descriptions. In my past experience the cultural norm was usually traditionalism of some form. Although today, the hierarchical structures are softening with more interdependence and recognition of each other’s skills, which is more Biblical.
John,
Since you posed the litmus test and you say you are egal, it would be useful to see what kinds of things you are thinking about with your test by providing examples from your life and others can see if they apply to their life.
FYI:
Jonathan Master read his paper on “Who Are the ‘Women’ in 1 Timothy 2?” at ETS 2008 (November 2008, Providence, RI)
He is a professor of Systematic Theology at Capital Bible Seminary:
http://www.bible.edu/Academics/Faculty
Jonathan Master, Instructor of Systematic Theology
Hope Baptist Church, Pastor, 2002 – 2006
Trinity Community Church, Associate Pastor, 2006-2007
Trinity Community Church, Senior Pastor, 2007 -
B.S., Philadelphia Biblical University, 1998
M.Div., Capital Bible Seminary, 2001
Th.M., Capital Bible Seminary, 2002
He argues for the translation “wife” and somewhat argues against Schreiner and Kostenberger.
I don’t know if/when his paper will be on the Internet, but if you order the 2 DVDs of the Conference talks you can listen to the MP3 file (Number 044 on DVD #1). Maybe some of you ETS members and theologians/teachers can email him and request his paper.
Interesting questions. For the record, not all people switch positions for the same reasons. I went from comp to egal early in my Christian walk because, after much prayer and study, I felt the egal position was the most faithful to biblical truth. Later experience and yes, crises, have served to confirm this, but they didn’t precipitate the change.
Hello again, John. Quick question: is the egalitarian background that you have mentioned one of biblical egal.ism, based on biblical conviction and emphasizing mutual submission and accountability in the context of devotion to God, or that of secular egal.ism, which, while sometimes noble in its ideals, is often based in autonomy and individual rights and lacks true biblical accountability. Can you give examples of each kind of egal.ism that you have experienced and how they are different from each other ( I’d like other folks’ input on this too)? Thanks
Sarah,
That is great news that you became egal the way you did. Now I know a woman who did it that way.
Thanks, donjo. I actually came to my conclusions at the same complementarian Bible college Wayne attended, if memory serves. At that point, I’d had little negative experience with comp. theology or practice (other than a certain amount of confusion and disappointment when I first heard about it, which I chalked up to fleshly rebellion and put firmly out of mind). I ran into a couple of egal books tucked deep in the library; brought them up to my comp pastor back home, who provided material from both points of view & supportively helped me wade thru the theology. I had no idea how hot the issue was…found out shortly.
Sarah,
Two members of the compegal team, Marilyn and David M.,
know biblical egalism intimately. Marilyn I remember attended a biblical egal church for a time. But both in the end chose a version of complementarianism. David Lang (see older posts) learned at the feet of a great egal scholar like Roger Nicole, but came down on the side of compism.
I have family that attended a Christian college with a diversity of positions represented, and who chose not to follow the most egal approach to marriage represented.
But you are right that there are others who have made the switch based on, in my view, a total of four major factors:
(1) bad experiences being raised in an egal setting that was not of the “biblical” variety
(2) involvement in a comp church which nurtures them in a ton of ways.
(3) compatibility with the plain sense of scripture as they understand it.
(4) a conviction that compism fits who they are, their own predilections.
It seems to me that many people who have made the switch to biblical egalism do so for symmetrical reasons.
I checked Amazon for Roger Nicole. Seems he is passed on. When did he die?
Anyone know anything about him?
“…wonder if the male-exclusivity appealed to and defended is not simply a Bible-based appeal but also a residual effect of the pastor having assumed the function previously held by the priest?”
Eric,
I think I agree. Since the priest was male-only, the argument being he was a representative of Christ and since Christ was male, the priests had to be male too (right?), it seems a logical extension that as the Reformation took place and the priests morphed into pastors, much of the old paradigm was brought into the new.
Another related thought includes the idea that the Reformations ideal priest/pastor was one who preached/taught (vs. the old model of the priest being the one who handled the Eucharist/Presence). Since Timothy’s letter is often translated that women cannot teach men, it would be another logical extension that the Reformation’s pastor’s excluded women because of the heavy emphasis on pastors providing long exhaustive teaching to the congregation.
I dunno…just musings.
Molly,
Or is that “long, exhausting teaching”? I sometimes wonder.
TL,
Here is the Wikipedia entry for Roger Nicole:
Roger R. Nicole (born 1915) a native Swiss Reformed theologian and a Baptist, has long been regarded as one of the preeminent theologians in America. He is a Christian Egalitarian and Biblical Inerrantist. He was an associate editor for the New Geneva Study Bible and assisted in the translation of the New International Version of the Bible. He was a founding member of both the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and the Evangelical Theological Society, of which he is a past president. He holds a M.A. from Sorbonne, an S.T.M. and Th.D. from Gordon Divinity School, a Ph.D. from Harvard University, and a D.D. from Wheaton College.
He is Emeritus Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida. He also is professor emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. A devotee of mathematics and prolific writer, he has produced some 100 articles and contributed to fifty books and reference works. A bibliophile and distinguished librarian with a massive collection, he owns Calvin’s Commentaries on the Gospels and Acts and other volumes from the 1500s and 1600s.
Respected internationally for his Christian statesmanship and scholarship, he is an acknowledged expert in the thought of Reformation leader John Calvin. An avid philatelist, Nicole has a personal collection of approximately one million stamps. Evangelical commentator David F. Wells dedicated his 1985 release, Reformed Theology in America, simply “to Roger Nicole, a man of God.”[1] J. I. Packer has written this tribute to Nicole: “Awesome for brain power, learning and wisdom, endlessly patient and courteous in his gentle geniality, and beloved by a multitude as pastor, mentor and friend.”
An article by him:
“Hermeneutics and the gender debate” in Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy. Edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Selected publications [from Theopedia]
* Roger Nicole, Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole, Christian Focus Publications (September 2002) ISBN 1857926463
* Roger Nicole, Our Sovereign Saviour: Understanding the Essence of the Reformed Faith, Christian Focus Publications (2002) ISBN 1857927370
* David W. Bailey, Speaking the Truth in Love: The Life and Legacy of Roger Nicole, Solid Ground Christian Books (2006) ISBN 1599250934
Online writings
* The Canon of the New Testament, JETS 40/2 (June 1997) 199–206.
* Open Theism is Incompatible with Inerrancy Founders Journal (Spring 2003) 14-21.
* New Testament Use of the Old Testament from Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl. F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958).
* John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement at apuritansmind.com from Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (Fall 1985).
* Biblical Egalitarianism and the Inerrancy of Scripture, Published in Priscilla Papers, Spring 2006
Hi John,
(I’m not following you around…really!) I am wondering, is it possible that those who have chosen compism after having had experience with egalism have actually chosen traditionalism, which is pretty much defined currently as compism?
Hi Bonnie.
I’m not John, but one thing I’d like to observe is that in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Grudem and Piper are careful to say that Complementarianism is not the same as simply preserving the presumed status quo.
And I would also like to say that I see the biblical teaching about men and women as quite different from the way men and women have treated one another throughout history and certainly from the way people think that they should treat one another in Australia today.
I think that the biblical teaching challenges both traditionalists and feminists.
Hi David,
I think that the biblical teaching challenges both traditionalists and feminists.
Absolutely. It challenges us all!
Do you have a page reference for what you are referring to in RBMW? Thanks