Hey, y’all, a few simple wording changes or additions can make my questionnaire such that even though it hasn’t been some days in preparation, a splendid time is guaranteed for all. And I somewhat generalized it so it can apply to both marriage and church relations and relationships by changing “the male” and “the female” to “males” and “females.”
So have at it, ladies and gentlemen. Kick the questions around, and please don’t shoot the messenger, I’m only the piano player! 
I. Can the Complementarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support males being abusive to females or females being abusive to males?
If yes, what specific tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support males being abusive to females? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
If yes, what specific tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support females being abusive to males? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
II. Can the Egalitarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support males being abusive to females or females being abusive to males?
If yes, what specific tenets of Egalitarianism are or can be used to support males being abusive to females? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
If yes, what specific tenets of Egalitarianism are or can be used to support females being abusive to males? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
That way one can see the extent to which the tenets of the systems themselves can or cannot be used to support abusive behavior, and not simply if some members of one or both sides engage in abusive behavior.
And … you can’t answer “Yes” without also listing the specific tenet(s) of Complementarianism or Egalitarianism that support(s) your “Yes” answer.
(Note: I chose to use the word “tenets” instead of “tenets or teachings” because there may be some persons who present Comp or Egal teachings which may not in actuality conform to the tenets of Complementarianism or Egalitarianism. Thus, just because someone teaches something that is presented as what Comps or Egals should do or believe doesn’t automatically mean that it’s what Complementarianism and Egalitarianism hold to.)
- This post written by guest author and frequent commenter here at Complegal, Eric W. See here for his comment and the surrounding conversation.
[W]hat specific tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support males being abusive to females? List them:
1.
That is from Embracing God’s Plan for Authority at CBMW.
It’s all very well to say that male leadership should be loving and sacrificial but it presumes that males at the age they typically marry (mid-20s) have already learned how to do that. In most cases, if not all, they have not.
[R]eflective thinking [i.e., the abilitity to coordinate "one's thinking at the abstract level"] does not emerge before early adulthood.
The concept of “loving, sacrificial leadership” is about as abstract as you can get, which is why we choose elders to run a church, not juniors.
So, given that most young men are beginner learners at the art of loving, sacrificial leadership, to tell a young man he has the right to determine, “the direction of his home, family, and marriage,” (from another article at CBMW titled Male Leadership – I’d provide the link but a lot of blogs only allow 2 per comment; maybe this is one of them) is to invite him to learn from the consequences to others of his youthful egocentricity. Their suffering might eventually cause him to suffer and, thereby, perhaps, to realise that he is not as loving and sacrificial as he thought he was. If he recognises his role in causing the suffering of others he might learn to be less selfish and more loving and sacrificial.
That makes the others (wife and children) objects. They are not persons but aids to learning.
To treat other human beings as objects is abusive. And if the learning never occurs, as is likely if the wife has bought the same package and keeps on supporting him in his egocentricity because she thinks that’s her duty, then so much the worse for everyone involved.
Furthermore, to tell a woman that it is her duty, always, to follow her husband – to make his interests her interests, to make his goals her goals, to make his preferences her preferences – is to negate her personhood and that is abusive in itself. I’d go so far as to call it a kind of murder.
Finally, I’m amused (in the sense of laughing so I don’t have to cry) by these remarks of the two CBMW contributors responsible for the Male Leadership article.
Obviously it hasn’t occurred to them that they are prescribing exactly the same thing; a marriage in which one person “wins”; regularly. But that’s OK for them because in their scheme the person doing the regular “winning” is the husband.
Re: my “tenets” vs. “teachings” statement:
Tenet: any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.
Teaching: Something that is taught, esp. a doctrine or a precept.
I’m not sure it’s always easy to distinguish between the two, since both definitions include the word “doctrine,” nor that someone who answers this questionnaire has to stick with my criterion. I was trying to separate what Complementarianism and Egalitarianism actually hold as being true – which I guess is another way of saying what they believe the Bible says/teaches – as opposed to some things they teach that men and women must do or not do based on those tenets but not necessarily stated by those tenets. On the other hand, tenets get their “flesh and blood” via the teachings. If the distinction needs to be made (I wrote it quickly and late at night!), it might help to give some examples of the differences.
Perhaps this is one such comparison:
Tenet: There is One God, who has revealed Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Teaching: Various teachings on how to worship and how to pray to this One God, etc.
I wrote this questionnaire in response to some of the comments that were generated by people giving examples of abuse by proponents of a position. I thought that perhaps if one could separate what the two systems actually hold to, one could better see if the systems themselves are the cause of the abuse or the excuse for the abuse, or if the abusers were misapplying and misinterpreting the tenets of their position when they derived or justified their abusive behavior from them.
I guess the comments or lack of comments in this thread will show whether the questionnaire is workable or not. Personally, if I were pressed to list what are the tenets of Complementarianism and Egalitarianism, I’m not sure I could do it, since I’ve never really been involved in either system in an official way, nor studied the Constitutions of the opposing groups, assuming they have such documents.
Thanks for thinking enough of the post to make it its own thread.
This was a joint effort between Molly and I.
Actually, I’m thinking that it is going to be somewhat difficult to distinguish between tenet and teaching. Who establishes a general tenet of complementarianism? Perhaps, CBMW would be the place to go for that. Yet, there are teachings that are promoted as if they were tenets by some of the more vocal leaders of the comp/patri movements.
And who would we look to for egals? Likely CBE. I don’t think there is as much divergence in Christian egals as there is within comps and patri’s.
I would really like us to provide sources of some sort to what we consider the tenet or teaching we are using.
Perhaps, this should be included in the post.
It is good to remember that this tenet/teaching of CBMW is an interpretation of a few Scriptures. It is an interpretation IOW that one can arrive at from certain verses in Scripture. It is not the only interpretation and in many cases this interpretation works in marriages.
The question here is how does it not work in the sense of allowing abuse in marriage.
Janice has made several good points that it really depends upon the spiritual maturity of the husband. An immature husband can run with it into excessive domination which of course result in abuses to the wife.
Janice,
I agree with TL. You really bring out some very strong issues that I’ve never heard articulated like that before. Thanks.
This excerpt (from pg. 75) is one of many similar quotes from the book, “Radical Womanhood,” by Carolyn McCulley (with a foreward by Wayne Grudem, a book that has been resoundly applauded on CBMW):
“God has assigned the husband the role of the guide. The husband is accountable for guiding the raft according to the instructions he has received from the Bible. Likewise, God has assigned the wife the role of the fellow-paddler. She takes her paddling cues from her husband, and together they navigate the turbulence of life. If he doesn’t lead well, the boat could go in circles. If she doesn’t follow well, the boat could capsize.”
Here are things that are problematic with regards to spousal abuse:
1. The husband is the guide. He decides the direction. (This fits in perfectly with the quote in a recent post from the Boundless/Focus-on-the-Family website where hte husband has the say on how many babies the wife has, whether she works or stays home, whether kids are homeschooled or attend a school, whether a sick child recieves treatment or not, etc).
The abusive person (and this is cited by many studies, this is not just my opinion) must control. Control is a key factor when it comes to the abusive mindset. So a man with a propensity to abuse hears that he is the guide—he decides where the boat goes, and his wife is there to facilitate him getting the boat where he wants it—-and now he has justification for a flesh-driven fall-based drive of his, and acts accordingly.
2. The wife’s life is dependent on what the husband chooses for her. If the boat goes in circles because he is a poor leader, then the boat goes in circles.
This helps abused women learn that even when things are bad, even when the family is getting “nowhere,” or is frustrated, or is going backwards, even if she is getting sick from going in circles, etc, it’s still her job to row in accordance with her husbands instructions. In other words, the abused woman is rendered even more helpless to do anything about her situation, through the instructions from complementarian teachers.
3. She is threatened, in one of many threats, with being responsible for capsizing the boat, if she doesn’t follow.
The abused woman already has few, if any, rights to have personal boundaries or personal opinions. Now, the one thing she has, her family, is at stake: if she doesn’t submit, her family will be destroyed and it will be all her fault. She’s in enough of a climate of fear as it is, but adding this ensures that only the very rare woman will be able to realize that she is being abused and that she needs to get out and take a firm stand against the abuse.
I think there’s a danger of going overboard with concerns abuse from a husband in a Complementarian marriage. Surely Complementarian teachers don’t advocate that a wife should do whatever her husband says, irrespective of the clear moral codes in, say, the Torah and the Sermon on the Mount? I don’t know of any that do.
If convinced of Complementarianism, perhaps by identifying a hierarchy in the Trinity (with God the Father being ‘greater than all’, as Jesus said), we could be concerned about husbands in Egalitarian marriages feeling frustrated at not fulfilling their God-ordained role. I can think of at least one marriage among my friends that broke down due to the wife being very bossy, as she has admitted herself.
And let’s not lose sight of the fact that Jesus calls us to more than establishing and banging on about our rights all the time. We find it sad when we see a female politician trying to sound and behave just like a man.
Anybody have any responses to the questionnaire? I.e., any specific tenets of Complementarianism and/or Egalitarianism that are or can be used to support abusing the other gender?
Or perhaps even more elementary: Does anyone have a list of the Tenets of Biblical/Christian Complementarianism and/or the Tenets of Biblical/Christian Egalitarianism.
Maybe it’s premature to ask the questions before we know the tenets.
CBE’s Core Values:
We believe the Bible teaches the equality of women and men.
We believe God has given each person gifts to be used for the good of Christ’s kingdom.
We believe Christians are to develop and exercise their God-given gifts in church, world, and home.
We believe the Bible teaches that Christians are to oppose injustice.
CBE Statement of Faith(short version)
We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.
We believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation, and in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers.
We believe in the unity and trinity of God, eternally existing as three equal persons.
We believe in the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ.
We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and women of all ethnicities, ages, and classes. We recognize that all persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image in the community of believers, in the home, and in society.
We believe in the sinfulness of all persons. One result of sin is shattered relationships with God, others, and self.
We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church and society.
We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people.
We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God’s design.
We believe that, as mandated by the Bible, men and women are to oppose injustice.
CBMW Affirmations — The Danvers Statement
Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following:
Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).
Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).
Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).
The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).
In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.
In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.
The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.
In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).
In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).
In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will.
With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor 12:7-21).
We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.
The Danvers Statement is defined by Wiki as,
“The Danvers Statement is an official statement of the complementarian Christian view of gender roles. It is not the product of any particular Christian denomination, but has been endorsed or cited by many Christian groups. It was first published by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) in Wheaton, Illinois in November 1988. Work on the statement began with “several evangelical leaders” at a CBMW meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts in December of 1987.[1] In 1989, a paid advertisement center-spread appeared in the January 13 issue of Christianity Today accompanied with the Danvers Statement.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danvers_Statement
CBMW STATEMENTS I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH:
As I have time, I hope to find some CBMW statements that are troublesome to me and comment on them.
The above concerns me first because it calls Eve something the Bible does not. In fact, it ascribes evil to Eve when the Bible says she was deceived. It then carries this thought to all women implying that all women have this tendency. Historically, Tertullian was a formidiable proponent of this for a while. I’m of the impression that he changed somewhat as time went on. But earlier he called women the gateway to evil or some such. And it was believed that women were sexual beings whose sexuality was a trap for men. Flatly, this is a lie that is wrong for Christians to promote for women.
Secondly, it implies that woman must only be receiver never initiator. But this is not a Biblical truth. Thus it cripples women into a “waiting game”. All her Christian life must wait for male leadership. Thus she desires a husband so that she has secure and handy male leadership, she waits for a teacher to lead her into truth (risky because how does one know which teacher has all the truth), she waits for men to guide her rightly in most everything in life.
cndo,
You write,
I can think of at least one marriage among my friends that broke down due to the wife being very bossy, as she has admitted herself.
That women can be bossy, violent or evil does not argue against the man being in charge. We know that men are stronger, more aggressive, more status-seeking, more risk-taking with less connection between language and emotion. This does not suit them to make decisions for the family. But given this facts, I do not argue that women should be in charge of men.
Why do complementarians argue that just because a woman can be as bossy as a man, that men should be in charge of women? I cannot think of even one justification for a husband being in charge of his wife as a lifelong arrangement.
I have to say that I am completely in the dark about how men justify the way they treat women.
That women can be bossy, violent or evil does not argue against the man being in charge.
I am very backwards about my negatives on this topic. It is very emotional to me. I meant
That women can be bossy, violent or evil does not argue for the man being in charge.
I have been reading Love and Respect and I wish that I had kept to my original decision not to read it. I feel violated and dragged through the grinder, with all the language about men being over women. I wish I had just steeped myself in porn instead. I wish that I had never known this kind of Christianity, that God had preserved me from evil. My soul despairs of peace. Will men never roll up their user attitude towards women and leave us a bit of peace?
”Surely Complementarian teachers don’t advocate that a wife should do whatever her husband says, irrespective of the clear moral codes in, say, the Torah and the Sermon on the Mount? I don’t know of any that do.”
Here’s the thing that bothers me about that cndo…
If one must do whatever another says EXCEPT for only what is not sin and/or what is immoral, that leaves the possibility of a lot of things to which a wife must do. It leaves the potential for slavery. Not every husband who believes that he is leader and his wife is follower will take it that far. However, some do. The sliding scale is wide depending on the inclinations of a man to be controlling or not. And then how does one define ‘controlling’. To me, to think one can tell his wife when to have dinner ready, what one wants to eat and expect precise compliance, what to wear or not, what church one must go to, who does what in the family, and so on, are excessively controlling. But a man who thinks he is exercising his male leadership might not think so. This IMO is the danger of such a teaching.
Okay, let me throw some kindling on the fire.
I. Can the Complementarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support males being abusive to females or females being abusive to males?
Yes.
If yes, what specific tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support males being abusive to females? List them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Etc.
Per The Danvers Statement:
I find tenets 2. and 3. to be potential sources of abuse.
Tenet 1. establishes equality of both sexes “before God,” but then tenet 3. establishes a male:female hierarchy before God.
Is that a contradiction? Tenets 4.a. and 4.b., as I’ve numbered them, imply that the proper female “roles” are “willing submission” and have “limitations.” Since no “limitations” are placed on the males, it seems to me that this hierarchical “roles” idea contradicts tenet 1., or makes it largely inconsequential except when it comes to an individual’s personal relationship with God.
Due to tenet 4., tenets 2. and 3. can result in male abuse of the female, yet they don’t seem to “establish” or “ordain” a system that, if followed, would or could allow female abuse of the male. I.e., the abuse potential is one-way.
Additionally, it seems that tenet 2., by introducing gender-dependent or gender-restricted or gender-defined “roles,” introduces a means by which such “roles” can be (but need not be) placed in a superordinate:subordinate relationship when the relationships between the various roles are defined. This means that persons who are by default or [God's] design slotted into those “roles” can thereby be placed in either a superordinate or a subordinate position with respect to the other if the “roles” are defined in terms of headship, submission, leader, follower, etc.
In terms of home or church leadership, the tenets of The Danvers Statement seem to automatically and always place the female in the subordinate position, not because the female is not “equal before God as [a] person(s)” (an interesting use of the word “persons,” since Personhood is part of the Trinitarian definition of God, and it’s the Personhood of the members of the Trinity that makes each of them Fully God, I believe), but because the female has a particular “role” or “roles” distinct from the “role” or “roles” the male has, and those “roles” include “submission” to the male and “limitations” on the part of the female.
Okay, I’m done for now.
A note to anyone who does not have a comment approved. If everything is working correctly and comments not lost, all posts are compared rather gently to our posting guidelines. If a comment does not measure up well, there is the possibility that it may not get approved. It’s written right up there at the top of our Home page.
Bringing your complaints public in some cases can be considered an aggressive attitude that directly goes against the type of humble listening ear we want to give each other on this blog. It is reasonable to directly and privately ask the moderators what happened, in case there was a glitch on the internet which can and has happened. When our Equality Forums were being updated we lost posts and had no way of retrieving them. Anything is possible on the net. And if there was a comment not approved, it is reasonable to ask why, to which the moderators can choose to answer or not. If they suspect that their conversation will be made public it is possible that there will be no communication, other than what is said on this Blog.
Thank you Eric for pointing some of that out. Regarding point 2 roles are not mentioned in any of the verses cited, which is troubling IMO. And the fact that in point 1, our God given equality in being made in the image of God is counter to #2.
“2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).”
What is interesting about that today is that historically, though the concept of roles had not yet been born yet (since it was a French actors invention) the concepts of inferiority and superiority were given as reasons for women’s limitations. But those limitations were not seen as a result of creation but rather a result of the fall of humanity to which they tended to blame Eve more than Adam.
Both the historical blaming of Eve for the fall and the modern claim of women being born subordinate, are concepts that contribute to women’s abuses. Either women are treated poorly because they are thought to be unable to discern truth (blaming Eve), or they are treated poorly because women are born to serve men according to man’s inclinations to which women are to joyfully submit.
This somewhat deviates from the purpose of this thread by commenting on the tenets themselves and not the abuse-potential of the tenets, but one thing that struck me in reading the statements from The Danvers Statement was the seeming implication that the new birth and new covenant in Christ is a return to the original pre-Fall “created order” and not in fact a “new creation.”
Paul says that Christ is the “last Adam” as well as the head of the “new man.” In other words, Adam’s race, including the pre-Fall Adam (Paul cites Genesis 2:7 to make his Adam:Christ contrast in 1 Corinthians 15:45), ended with Christ. The last Adam died on the cross, and what came out of the grave was a new man, and (of) a new creation (or “creature” – the Greek word can mean either – 2 Corinthians 5:17), not simply a “renewed” creation.
In other words, I’m not sure that the New Creation is simply a restoration of the unfallen creation. And if it’s not, then I think it’s potentially faulty to ascribe even pre-Fall “created order” “distinctions” as being “ordered by God” to continue to be part of the New Creation in Christ.
I am sorry for my earlier remark. I am going to stop posting for a while since I have experienced some depression over reading Eggerichs book.
That is a very interesting point Eric. Thoughtful.
I am wondering if part of the problem here is because certain aspects of complementarian tenets are following historical traditional belief systems that have treated women almost contemptuously. Even though today they are painted with seemingly better reasons, they are still usable to treat women as less than men. And any system with an above and below is capable of being used that way. This is something that all hierarchical systems have to deal with.
Whereas mutuality is more difficult to be used with a above/below superior/inferior view, and thus less able to be used harmfully. But less does not mean impossible. Any humanly ordered relationship can be tweaked by the unscrupulous.
So, while comp/hierarchical systems are easier to abuse, we cannot say that any other system is impossible to abuse.
Hopefully, that helps the discussion somewhat.
believer3 wrote here that:
The thing is that loving, sacrificial leadership requires a level of spiritual maturity that cannot be expected to have been reached by anyone, male or female, who is only in their mid-20s. Some may have reached that level but they will be the exception, not the rule. It’s akin to expecting a 5 or 6 year old to be able, fluently, to read a book written for early teens or expecting a 10 year old to understand the concepts presented in a novel written for adults. Most just don’t have the capacity (maturity) to do it. And remember that this developmental pathway is the way God designed us.
Spiritual maturity comes from having spent years living with the Lord, and learning to love and obey him, as an adult who is capable of understanding spiritual things. If it comes earlier for one sex or the other it’s more likely to come earlier for females than for males simply because females tend to reach sexual maturity earlier than males do and thus can be expected to move beyond concrete thinking into abstract thinking earlier than males do.
To tell a young man that he has the responsibility to decide, “the direction of his home, family, and marriage,” when he has only just begun to be able to reflect on what that means is to ask too much of him and that could be considered abusive too. Who lays such loads on shoulders that can’t be expected to be capable of bearing them? Tyrants. Is God a tyrant? Of course not. And that’s why he has told us to submit to each other and serve each other. If we do that we can learn from each other and we will certainly help each other to grow in the knowledge and love of Christ whose rule was that of a servant, not of one who was served.
Is what CBE refers to as “biblical equality” mainly concerned with access of women to wage producing endeavors and pulpits? I am a member of CBE, but I find short shrift there of resources in support of MY lifestyle of being a long term stay at home mother (SAHM) of 8 children. Genuine “biblical equality” would certainly have a “big tent” inclusive and respectful of SAHM’s (and probably SAHD’s as well).
I have gathered from online discussion with various egalitarians that there is a strong emphasis on the woman having a career. I searched for “traditional marriage” at the CBE website, and it is only mentioned in a negative context. In some fairly recent discussion on an egalitarian board, it appears to me that egalitarians even judge that money spent on a college education for a woman who winds up being a career stay at home mother is wasted money (so they seem to have some common ground with some branches of patriarchy: the egalitarians lean to “educate her, but if she doesn’t have a career besides motherhood, the education is wasted”; the patriarchalists lean to “don’t educate her, the education is wasted because she should be a career mother”- To me both attitudes sound like bondage for women)
As for areas where I think these views can be abusive. Here is a clip from CBE (source)
I see in there the potential for both parents to resent childcare which conveys an awful lot of rejection to the children. Didn’t someone post on here elsewhere the abusiveness of rejection?
I also see in the treatment of traditional marriage and career mothering by CBE and among self professed egalitarians what appears to me as a rather profound disrespect toward career mothering. And disrespect can be abusive. What if a woman marries with the intention of working but when she has that baby everything in her screams to stay home and be a mother? Will that be respected and accommodated? Will she then be considered “second class” because she isn’t bringing home bacon? because she “wasted” all that education? I know women who desperately want to stay home with their children but their husband wants them to work full time. If they go read on CBE they will come away thinking their husband is “right”.
Now, these are what I see practiced out daily ( and these are quick examples not inclusive of all). I am not saying each “side” makes these arguments, but here is how these tenets are used as reason by an abusive person…
Tenets in the comp camp that can be used to justify/ condone / encourage abusive behaviors.
1. belief in the superiority of men in the home (he thinks he is rightful in his behaviors because he believes in the inferiority of women)
2. belief in male headship (he is the head and gets to make the rules)
3. belief in woman’s submission (if she doesn’t listen, he has a duty to correct her so she does. He also has the right to demand sex and she must comply)
4. belief in women cannot teach men (she is not smart enough and should know her place as inferior – even if she has a theo degree and he does not)
5. belief that a woman’s place is in the home (he is the breadwinner and brings home the money, so he gets to decide where it goes and when – it’s “his” money after all)
6. belief in hierarchies (again, men are better than women, women are inferior to men. Promotes sexual inequality as well, which includes viewing porn and demanding sex)
Tenets in the egal view that can be used to justify/ condone/encourage abusive behaviors.
1. belief that women can do anything a man can do (I can be just as abusive as a man and demand my own way – females who abuse)
2. ?
I see many women who are abused in hierarchal homes, not so much in egal homes – but that is my anecdotal evidence and my personal experience as a counselor to abused people. When any one group sees itself as superior and another group as inferior, abusive treatment is a natural outcome – whether it is race, ethnicity, social class or gender.
and about
“That women can be bossy, violent or evil does not argue against the man being in charge”
I was doing some research as to why the C&MA church, that used to ordain women, no longer does. There are still a few ordained female pastors. I was not given a good explanation, except that it began when Tozer came on board. However, I was told be a pastor friend who was at this certain meeting that the C&MA decided they needed to see if their view against women’s ordination was Biblical. They set a committee, which researched and came back and said they could find no Biblical support to keep women out of the pulpit. So it was set to be voted on. They had various speakers who supported women being ordained and my friend said you could see very positive response from the members. Then, one woman got up to speak who was very militant. he said you could see the vote change one by one to NOT allow ordination. Everyone kept thinking, “is this who we want in our pulpit?” So now the license and confirm women, but license and ordain men. My thought was don’t you have any militant men? Gender should not make the difference. It is the person, not the gender, who should be evaluated.
Gem,
What if a woman marries with the intention of working but when she has that baby everything in her screams to stay home and be a mother? Will that be respected and accommodated?
These are very legitimate concerns. However, among secular feminists there is a broad range of opinion. For example, Susan Pinker, author of the Sexual Paradox, is saying just what you say here. She promotes and supports equal rights and opportunities for women, she is a secular psychologist, but in her view, women will choose a less demanding career or to stay home.
My only concern is that in case of abuse, or a husband leaving, that is, in case divorce is the only outcome, a woman should have a possible income. Other than that concern, I see no reason why staying at home raising children should not be equally honoured.
I think that the Egalitarian teaching that marriage is about a balance of power is problematic and unbiblical. Marriage is not about power at all.
Teaching that wives need to be empowerd so they can have equal powere to the husband can lead to greater and greater power struggles which eventually destroy the relationship.
Biblical marriage is about things like love, submission, respect, and self-sacrificial service.
Making marriage about female empowerment introduces a worldly element into Christian marriage that is unbiblical.
Gem wrote: ” In some fairly recent discussion on an egalitarian board, it appears to me that egalitarians even judge that money spent on a college education for a woman who winds up being a career stay at home mother is wasted money”
Sometimes, we misunderstand people because of our own pains. Egals do not consider a college education a waste of money. Even if there were one Christian egal who did, it is not a tenet or even a generally held belief. We believe that all people should have the right to choose or not choose a college education. Education is always important no matter whether one has a career or not.
” I also see in the treatment of traditional marriage and career mothering by CBE and among self professed egalitarians what appears to me as a rather profound disrespect toward career mothering.”
Again, I see this as a misunerstanding. There are many egals who are career mothers and homeschool their children. Egals value both the working mother and the SAHM and the homeschooling parent. Families should feel it is important to choose what works best for them and not feel they have to conform to other Christians opinions.
The emphasis of Christians who believe in Biblical equality is the importance for each individual to choose, and to choose carefully not pushed toward one thing or another by reason of someone else’s preferences.
I think that the egalitarian emphasis on a woman’s need to be independent is problematic. I don’t think that men should be encouraged to live independent lives, so I do not think that it is good to encourage women to live independent lives.
I don’t see that God created independent human beings. He created men and women to be interdependent, not independent one from another.
Adam was not an independent male. Eve was not an independent female.
1 Corinthians 11:11
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
Sometimes, we misunderstand people because of our own pains. Egals do not consider a college education a waste of money. Even if there were one Christian egal who did, it is not a tenet or even a generally held belief.
The important word is “tenet.” I.e., what are the officially-held and stated tenets of Egalitarianism and Complementarianism. We all know of instances where Egals and Comps teach or do things that are not in line with the tenets of those systems – though some such teachings or actions can no doubt be derived from the system’s tenets.
But in order to know whether Egalitarianism or Complementarianism, or both, can be critiqued for giving opportunity and license for one gender to abuse the other, one has to go by the tenets of the system, not by bad examples described apart from the tenets. Because if the abuse is occurring in spite of, or contrary to, the system’s tenets, or because of a teaching that is not stated or endorsed or supported by the system’s tenets, then it’s incorrect to fault the system (i.e., Egalitarianism or Complementariansm) as allowing or promoting or endorsing such abuse.
“I think that the Egalitarian teaching that marriage is about a balance of power is problematic and unbiblical. Marriage is not about power at all.”
That would be correct. Egals do not teach that marriage is about a balance of power. I remember that something along that line was said in response to statements by hierarchalists that a husband should have all the power in the marriage. The response was that there should be a balance of power rather than one having it all. And the concept of the husband having all the ‘power’ (with all it’s implications) had destructive potential to a marriage.
Egals teach that the ‘head of’ and ‘body of’ metaphor in Eph. 5 shows an interdependence and mutuality.
Excellent point. And one that both sides need to consider. However, we should also be paying attention to changes. CBMW is changing their tenets.
I haven’t noticed if CBE has changed anything. If anything I think they are trying to cover more bases that they didn’t pay as much attention to. Now they are trying to promote more material for dealing with abuse (as is CBMW) and more material for helping men (as has CBMW). They are also I believe looking to promote more material for young men and women. Because CBE is all about freedom in choice they have not emphasized encouraging homeschooling or SAHM, however there are a LOT of homeschoolers who are egals. And I know at least one egal book for SAHM’s only because I know the person. But I don’t think these emphasis’ have reflected a change in thinking.
CBMW has also changed, actually becoming more patriarchal by promoting Paige Patterson, Bruce Ware and Doug Wilson. Since CBMW started from a patriarchal base, it is not too surprising that they are leaning again in that direction. The only question is how far are they leaning?
Excellent point. And one that both sides need to consider. However, we should also be paying attention to changes. CBMW is changing their tenets.
I haven’t noticed if CBE has changed anything. If anything I think they are trying to cover more bases that they didn’t pay as much attention to. Now they are trying to promote more material for dealing with abuse (as is CBMW) and more material for helping men (as has CBMW). They are also I believe looking to promote more material for young men and women. Because CBE is all about freedom in choice they have not emphasized encouraging homeschooling or SAHM, however there are a LOT of homeschoolers who are egals. And I know at least one egal book for SAHM’s only because I know the person. But I don’t think these emphasis’ have reflected a change in thinking.
CBMW has also changed, actually becoming more patriarchal by promoting Paige Patterson, Bruce Ware and Doug Wilson. Since CBMW started from a patriarchal base, it is not too surprising that they are leaning again in that direction. The only question is how far are they leaning?
TL:
That would be correct. Egals do not teach that marriage is about a balance of power. >>>>
Well, actually, I have heard Egalitarians argue that way in the course of discussions.
I would ask, though, why the CBE uses the term “female empowerment” so often in reference to equality?
Female empowerment is a theme that runs through much Egalitarian teaching.
I have seen it applied to marriage. Are you saying that the Egalitarians who do this are not in line with the true teachings of Egalitarianism? What do you mean?
http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl
Eric,
I tried to respond according to the tenets… or are what I stated not the tenets you were thinking of? or am I misunderstanding the tenets?
Just trying to get clarity
“Well, actually, I have heard Egalitarians argue that way in the course of discussions.”
As I said, something along that line was said in response to statements by hierarchalists that a husband should have all the power in the marriage. The response was that there should be a balance of power rather than one having it all. And the concept of the husband having all the ‘power’ (with all it’s implications) had destructive potential to a marriage.
The idea of female empowerment is also in response to the concepts that males should have all the power. The idea is that both men and women should have ‘power’ but our lives are not built around power, but of service. Biblically everyone should be empowered to serve in the Body of Christ not just men.
The empowered language was a hierarchalist construction not an egal one. We simply responded using the same language.
I think that the Egalitarian teaching that marriage is about a balance of power is problematic and unbiblical. Marriage is not about power at all.
Teaching that wives need to be empowerd so they can have equal powere to the husband can lead to greater and greater power struggles which eventually destroy the relationship.
Biblical marriage is about things like love, submission, respect, and self-sacrificial service.
Making marriage about female empowerment introduces a worldly element into Christian marriage that is unbiblical.
What?
I don’t understand.
The comp message, in great part, is that husbands are to be in authority (power) and that wives are to submit to that authority (make sure to affirm and encourage the husband’s authority/power). Pipers definitions of mature masculinity and feminity are all centered around who has the power and who doesn’t—who follows and who leads, who does not have authority and who does. Authority of one spouse over the other is a central, if not THE central, foundation of comp teachings and is what differentiates in in great part from egal teachings.
So if you say that making marriage about female empowerment is worldly, making marriage about male empowerment should be equally worldly…right?
What the complementarian message does is empower males to be the authorities of their wives, to make the decisions, to have the final say. It takes away power from wives because it does not give them the right to make decisions or have the final say…UNLESS their husband gives them that right.
Many many many good complementarian men give their wives that right, and treat their wives with respect and as full equals. Good on them. They should be proud of themselves and I applaud them. But some complementarian men do not and will not and are not capable of that. They will use their power to abuse, and the complementarian message does not give their wives the power to say no (unless it is open clear sin, such as adultery or abortion, etc).
Do any complementarians see the message of Focus on the Family as problematic with regards to who has the power and who doesn’t?
-The complementarian wife does not have the right to say no to a husband that tells her she must get her tubes tied, even though she wants another baby.
-The complementarian wife does not have the right/power to say no to a husband that tells her she has to go to work full time, when what she really wants to do is stay home and homeschool.
-The complementarian wife does not have the right to say that she does not want to have sex because she doesn’t feel like it because her husband has been treating her horribly all day.
-The complementarian wife does not have the right to say that she doesn’t want to move to a far away country if her husband wants to move there.
-The complementarian wife does not have the right to demand that her dying child not recieve another round of experimental chemo, if her husband decides that the child should recieve it.
And there’s plenty more where that came from. I feel like the author of the book of James (when he was talking about the bitter and sweet fountaiN), because I too want to shout, “My brethren, these things ought not be so!”
This is glorifying to God? This is a “Christian” marriage? This is supposed to draw the world to the sweet savor of Christ? This is what the Bible teaches? This is “Good News?”
Biblical marriage is about things like love, submission, respect, and self-sacrificial service.
This is the egalitarian message in a nutshell. We just don’t divide those qualities into catagories of boys-only, girls-only. Those qualities are for everyone to practice.
Kate Johnson
Eric,
I tried to respond according to the tenets… or are what I stated not the tenets you were thinking of? or am I misunderstanding the tenets?
Just trying to get clarity
Kate:
I don’t know if we have the “official” tenets of Complementarianism and Egalitarianism, but I think TL’s two posts of March 22, 2009:
4:47 pm (CBE Egalitarianism)
4:50 pm (CBMW Complementarianism)
are close enough.
I.e., to address or respond to the tenets, one could take the statements of these posts/documents as being the tenets of Egalitarianism and Complementarianism, respectively. I’ll repeat them here:
CBE’s Core Values: (i.e., Egalitarianism)
We believe the Bible teaches the equality of women and men.
We believe God has given each person gifts to be used for the good of Christ’s kingdom.
We believe Christians are to develop and exercise their God-given gifts in church, world, and home.
We believe the Bible teaches that Christians are to oppose injustice.
CBE Statement of Faith (short version)
We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.
We believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation, and in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers.
We believe in the unity and trinity of God, eternally existing as three equal persons.
We believe in the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ.
We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and women of all ethnicities, ages, and classes. We recognize that all persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image in the community of believers, in the home, and in society.
We believe in the sinfulness of all persons. One result of sin is shattered relationships with God, others, and self.
We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church and society.
We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people.
We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God’s design.
We believe that, as mandated by the Bible, men and women are to oppose injustice.
- – -
CBMW Affirmations — The Danvers Statement (i.e., Complementarianism)
Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following:
Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).
Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).
Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).
The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).
In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.
In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.
The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.
In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).
In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).
In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will.
With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor 12:7-21).
We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.
Empower: make more confident or assertive, to give somebody a greater sense of confidence or self-esteem. Give authority to somebody.
In the case of empowering women, my use is that it is empowering them over themselves, not another person. It is helping them to have a greater sense of confidence in their abilities. Of course, in the Christian world this empowerment is with and through Christ.
Molleth,
I think Webfoot was saying that egals should not use the term if they are against power in a relationship. But if you understand empowerment correctly, it is not a problem for egals to use as I have stated above.
believer3 said:
One would think, then, that those lifestyles/demographics would be fairly well represented in a positive light among the offerings at CBE.
A “tenet” is “any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement” I don’t think its even-handed if people are allowed to quote from CBMW’s website besides their explicit “list of beliefs” to prove their practices, but not allowed to quote from CBE’s website. Bear in mind that I am not in opposition to CBE. I am a member. I do find they have overlooked a HUGE demographic among Christians which is terribly disappointing to me personally- as if somehow I am less “equal” because I am a career wife and mother instead of an aspiring preacher or academic.
Here’s the page where family and marriage articles reside at CBE:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/marriage_family.shtml
I see nothing representing equality as practiced in a traditional family (with a career SAHM).
This a quote from one of the articles:
The article contrasts “egalitarian marriage” with “traditional marriage” and sure appears to define “egalitarian marriage” by whether the wife works: Note the bolded in the above quote. “Wives in traditional marriages” are the depressed ones while “men, working married women, and unmarried women” are less prone. (the latter is quoted from researchers, he left off the quote marks. Nevertheless, I walked away from the article with the distinct impression that “egalitarian” as well as marital satisfaction comes only with a wife’s paycheck)
Kate Johnson
Empower: make more confident or assertive, to give somebody a greater sense of confidence or self-esteem. Give authority to somebody. >>>
Exactly. So, when a man is seen to have all the authority, equal authority needs to be given to the woman so that there will be a balance of power. I have been taught that by Egalitarians, Chrisitan ones, Biblical ones.
Kate:
In the case of empowering women, my use is that it is empowering them over themselves, not another person. It is helping them to have a greater sense of confidence in their abilities. Of course, in the Christian world this empowerment is with and through Christ.>>>>
Of course. It is a balance of power you are suggesting.
I’m saying that marriage is not about power at all, or who is in power, or how much power and all that.
Egalitarians are saying that they agree with me on that, but use the word “empower” in ways that secularists do.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m the real egalitarian, here.
I may change my vote.
Thank you Kate for you kind and respectful reply. I appreciate your taking the time to try to understand what I am saying.
I see that Eric is trying to control his tongue. l;-)
Power and authority are synonyms in Biblical terms. Complementarianism is about male authority (power) over the female. It is explicitly about one person having power over another person.
Egalitarianism is about each person having personal authority and mutual submission.
Marriage is not about power at all.
Marriage is about power.
When you have your power taken away, and you try to live without power, then you know. It is like trying to live without food or air, or any other basic thing.
Charis:
I think people can quote from whatever source they wish. I am simply suggesting that for the purposes of my questionnaire, they try to distinguish tenets from non-official teachings (and perhaps even official teachings), if possible, so as to be able to judge or critique what the two systems actually set forth as their tenets and what they hold to or hold forth as the basis of what they believe – as opposed to what some (or even many) may teach or do based on those tenets. Only by knowing what tenets a system is based on can one argue if the systems themselves – because of the tenets they’re based on – allow or encourage abuse by one gender against the other.
On the other hand, it may not be easy to distinguish the “tenets” of Egalitarianism and Complementarianism from the groups’ teachings or practices if the groups (e.g., CBE and CBMW) don’t clearly state what their tenets are, versus things derived from those tenets.
And, as my first follow-up comment mentioned, it may not be easy to clearly distinguish a tenet from a teaching, since there is some overlap in definition.
” The article contrasts “egalitarian marriage” with “traditional marriage” and sure appears to define “egalitarian marriage” by whether the wife works: Note the bolded in the above quote. “Wives in traditional marriages” are the depressed ones while “men, working married women, and unmarried women” are less prone. (the latter is quoted from researchers, he left off the quote marks. Nevertheless, I walked away from the article with the distinct impression that “egalitarian” as well as marital satisfaction comes only with a wife’s paycheck)
Traditional marriage is defined primarily as husband/leader and wife/follower, a marriage where the husband rules, guides, and directs the family and the wife complies. An egal marriage is not defined by who has the paycheck or who does or doesn’t word, but by mutuality in decisions, sharing household duties, child rearing, etc. In an egal marriages all these things are worked on together, according to what fits each particular couple. It is their choice, not anyone elses.
Sometimes modern traditionalism refers to women forbidden to work. Either way, marital satisfaction has little to do with whom has the paycheck. IMO it is about mutuality, freedom to choose how to organize one’s marriage, serving/supporting one another with love and charity.
Believer (8:38)
Where do you get that definition of “traditional marriage”?
If that is from CBE then I think they are shooting themselves in the foot, and alienating a lot of potential constituency by defining “traditional marriage” that way.
A quick internet search showed “the marriage between one man and one woman” as one definition of the phrase. And I recall Suzanne McCarthy commenting very warmly about her parents traditional marriage with distinct “spheres of authority”- her mother was deferred to and respected in her household and had great unilateral authority over household matters.
TL/believer3 wrote “If one must do whatever another says EXCEPT for only what is not sin and/or what is immoral, that leaves the possibility of a lot of things to which a wife must do. It leaves the potential for slavery. Not every husband who believes that he is leader and his wife is follower will take it that far.”
The leadership-followership relationship between a Complementarian husband and wife is intended to be more subtle, though; I’ve even heard it said that the wife can initiate things, it’s just that the overall leadership, the overall responsibility for the relationship, resides with the husband. If he proposes something that seems inappropriate to her, it is part of her calling to let him know, and for him to listen. Also, doesn’t God hold us all responsible for giving thought to whom we will marry, not rushing into it?
Tamar, I’m concerned because you seemed to be upset in some of your previous posts.
on March 23, 2009 at 8:23 pm Tamar
Power and authority are synonyms in Biblical terms. Complementarianism is about male authority (power) over the female. It is explicitly about one person having power over another person. >>>
Webfoot:
I respectfully disagree.
Tamar:
Egalitarianism is about each person having personal authority and mutual submission. >>>>
Webfoot:
It is impossible to have mutual submission if each one has personal authority. A husband’s authority is not personal. It is self-sacrificial. It is for the good of his family. It is the husband who is called on to love to the point of dying for his wife and I will add, family. He dies to self and serves His Lord and His family.
webfoot:
If a man is living for self, and using his authority for himself, he is not practicing Biblical Christianity in any way, shape or form.
Webfoot:
I believe that this use of authority for the good of others is the Biblical ideal. That is what I have seen my husband model on many occasions. That is what I have seen my pastor do on many occasions. That is what I have seen many Christian men do on many occasions. I have watched them lay down their lives for their wives and families.
Webfoot:
Do they do it perfectly? No, of course not. Do they do it on a regular basis? Yes, they do.
Webfoot:
Have I seen some failures, too? Yes, I have – a few really ugly ones.
Webfoot:
I’ll say that my father was not a Christian, but on many occasions I saw him sacrifice himself for my mom and for his family. He wasn’t perfect by any means. He did practice self-sacrificial love.
Webfoot said earlier:
Marriage is not about power at all.
Tamar:
Marriage is about power.
When you have your power taken away, and you try to live without power, then you know. It is like trying to live without food or air, or any other basic thing.>>>
Webfoot:
I respect your opinion, Tamar. I understand what you are saying. I also know how hard this is for you. Thank you for your kind response.
God bless you, Tamar, and please take care, beloved one,
Mrs. Webfoot
cndo: “Also, doesn’t God hold us all responsible for giving thought to whom we will marry, not rushing into it?”
I used to hold this view. “You made your bed, now lie in it.”
Well, guess what?
I met my husband in church. I never darkened the door of a bar. We waited over a year before we were married. I prayed. I felt at peace with it.
Husband wanted to go to Bible college. He did. He also became a pastor. Now he’s a backslidden, smoking alcoholic. Am I responsible for him and his behavior?
I gave thought, I didn’t rush in.
Yet I’m still living the life of a woman who found her husband in a smoky bar.
How am I responsible?
Well, I thank God for my experience for one thing if for nothing else.
Where people may be judgemental of me and my situation, I know God isn’t. He doesn’t hold me responsibley for the bad turn in my marriage or the bad behaviour of my spouse. Nor does He expect me to submit to his bad behaviour.
And therefore, neither will I judge others who find themselves in similar situations.
Power and authority are synonyms in Biblical terms.
Complementarianism is about male authority (power) over the female. It is explicitly about one person having power over another person. >>>
Webfoot:
I respectfully disagree.
What I stated are facts – not opinions. If you disagree then you must present some basis for disagreement.
‘I. Can the Complementarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support males being abusive to females or females being abusive to males?’
Yes.
‘If yes, what specific tenets of Complementarianism are or can be used to support males being abusive to females? List them:’
1. The male is to have authority/rule over the female.
Think Gen 3 where Eve is informed that Adam will now rule over her, and he will do this because things have now changed therefore he will do it out of sin.
‘I. Can the Complementarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support males being abusive to females or females being abusive to males?’
Yes, but worse or whats more is that (it is my opinion that) they support a fallen model of marriage (Gen 3) whether or not fine ironing work is done… (It is my opinion that) complementarinism is still the fallen model (male will rule female, Gen 3) so (in my opinion) naturally abuse will result. Though God can bring about good through anything…
Cam someone explain why the teaching of male authority is not about power. I don’t like it when people say that white is not really white or black is not actually black and power is not power.
Can someone explain to me how ‘headSHIP’ over a wife is not ‘ruling over’ a wife when the husband has the power through the authority of his ‘headship’ to decide how his wife is going to live and make descions for her?
‘Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).
The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).’
What’s the difference between having headship over and rule over a wife considering the power that the husband has over his wife? If he wants her to have one baby after another then she must submit. If he does not want her to take up a new job because he wants to have a job in a different city, she must submit. If he wants to attend a church that she doesn’t like, she must submit. He gets to decide by making the final descion. How is getting to decide by making the final descion NOT ruling over a wife? Even if it’s done nicely? Is it not still ruling over her? The husband gets to lay down the laaw of what’s what in a marriage. How is that not ruling over a wife?
And with all those examples I gave above and all the others that have been given here elsewhere, even if ‘IT’ is called ’servant leadership’ how is it NOT ruling over??
Good rule, bad rule, ruling over is still ruling over.
kathy
‘I. Can the Complementarianism tenets of male:female relations and relationships be used to support males being abusive to females or females being abusive to males?’
Yes, but worse or whats more is that (it is my opinion that) they support a fallen model of marriage (Gen 3) whether or not fine ironing work is done… (It is my opinion that) complementarinism is still the fallen model (male will rule female, Gen 3) so (in my opinion) naturally abuse will result. Though God can bring about good through anything…
Good points, Kathy. As I suggested in an earlier post here:
http://complegalitarian.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/guest-author-ericw-what-comp-egal-tenets-support-abuse/#comment-10172
the tenets of Complementarianism – or at least the tenets of The Danvers Statement – seem to see the work of Christ as a return to a pre-Fall Old Creation instead of establishing a New Creation.
Also, the Scriptures they use to support a pre-Fall headship of the man over the woman (or more precisely, the headship of the husband over the wife – i.e., “headship in marriage”):
seem to involve a bit of eisegesis and one-sided interpretation, IMO.
Charis,
A fuller version of the CBE article, “A Fresh Perspective on Submission and Authority in Marriage” (by Dennis Preato) can be found here. If you look there you’ll see that this part of your quote,
actually cites two studies, not one.
The first was a study by Jessie Bernard (“The Future of Marriage” – published in 1972 and again in 1982) in which Bernard argued, “that marriage was good for men but made women sick”. (From p274, “Sociology of Families”, David Newman & Elizabeth Grauerholz, 2002) At another place Bernard is said to have shown in her book that, “Married women also reported much higher rates of anxiety, phobia, and depression than any other group in society except single men.” That, I presume, is why Bernard said that marriage is good for men but makes women sick.
Note, first, that Bernard was not investigating the power structures in marriages and, second, that she was talking about what was going on in the 1960s. In the late 60s only one of my group of 8 high school friends had a mother who was working outside the home. So “traditional” wives were wives who stayed at home looking after the family. Most likely they were almost all women who took it for granted that men were the “head of the household” but I doubt that these women would have described themselves as “complementarian” because I doubt that the word “complementarian” existed then, or if it did, that it had any broad currency. And the idea of an egalitarian stay-at-home mum was far into the future.
The work of Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz is in the area of family violence. Unfortunately books.google wouldn’t let me see the relevant pages on power structures in the family in their 1980 book but I did find one by Straus, Gelles and Smith, dated 1999 and titled, “Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families”. They did research on conflict and violence in families having one of four different types of marital power structure: equalitarian (their word), male-dominant, female-dominant, or divided power (in which wife and husband each have final say for different decisions). Their research is worth quoting at some length. The following interesting stuff is on pages 300-301.
(Emphasis in the original and any typos not followed by a [sic] are mine.)
Maybe CBE should consider revising their version of the Preato article so that readers don’t have to guess what Garland means by “traditional” in the context of Bernard’s research.
[i]the tenets of Complementarianism – or at least the tenets of The Danvers Statement – seem to see the work of Christ as a return to a pre-Fall Old Creation instead of establishing a New Creation.
1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).
2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).
3. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).
4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16). (my numbering) [/i]
I don’t see those tenents (provided by the link you gave)speaking of the work of Christ.
Christ is never refered to as kephale of the church intel after he is resurrected and the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, and in context Paul looks back to Gen 2 in Eph 5, and in context of 1 Co 11, Paul brings up how the woman came to exist, ‘origin’. So Paul speaks of ‘head’ in a context of pre-fall creation, twice.
[i]Also, the Scriptures they use to support a pre-Fall headship of the man over the woman (or more precisely, the headship of the husband over the wife – i.e., “headship in marriage”):
3. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).
seem to involve a bit of eisegesis and one-sided interpretation, IMO.[/i]
Where Paul makes reference to Gen pre-fall in Eph 5 & 1 Co 11, I believe those scripture do show us what kephale means (’source’), but headSHIP is something different and gives the husband rulership over the wife and rule over the wife can only be found in Gen 3 after the fall.
I tried italics but it didn’t work!
Mrs Webfoot,
I find it very hard to distinguish between what you are quoting and how your are responding to what you have quoted.
If you could italicise the quotes or put them in a blockquote that would help me greatly.
Now I am going to try to show you how to do that but whether it will work or not I’m not sure because my knowledge of html escape keys is rusty.
To italicise a quote, type <i>Your quote goes here.</i>
To put your quote in a blockquote, type
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
So here goes and here’s hoping …
Nope. Didn’t work.
Wayne, would you delete that please.
Thanks.
‘Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.’
EricW, this is the first time Christ is mentioned and funny thing is that at the fall (only serpent and ground were cursed) ‘rule over’ was introduced, yet that is what compism CBMW style teaches but uses words like ‘headship’ (which still conveys rulership in some way) and servant-leadership.
Webfoot said, It is impossible to have mutual submission if each one has personal authority. A husband’s authority is not personal. It is self-sacrificial. It is for the good of his family. It is the husband who is called on to love to the point of dying for his wife and I will add, family. He dies to self and serves His Lord and His family.
Is a wife’s love not to be self-sacrificial as well? I don’t believe that Paul in Eph. 5 is giving a narrow prescription for who is to love in what kind of way — he is simply telling husbands to sacrificially love their wives, and wives to submit to/respect their husbands. To add to (or take away from) this is foolishness. Nor do I think he is setting off one against the other, which is a false complementarity.
On power: to suggest that life, or marriage, is about an absence of power is, frankly, nonsense. Any thought or action that comes to bear on anyone or anything else has power. Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
The issue isn’t power itself; it’s what kind of power, and how it is used.
It may or may not be important, but the two common Greek words for “power” – dunamis and exousia – have different semantic ranges. dunamis is more along the lines of ability; it is also translated as “miracle” in some passages. exousia is more along the lines of authority. It seems to me that the instances of exousia are the ones that come into play in the Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism relations between men and women. That’s the word that’s used in 1 Corinthians 11:10, the meaning of which in context is subject to a lot of debate, IIRC. FWIW, Romans 1:16 uses dunamis.
Sorry, Janice, I don’t know which phrase. Please let me know and I can delete it.
Janice,
Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. That was some very interesting research you quoted at length. Good find!
LOL
(I resemble that!)
For the following:
* Use the less-than sign instead of the right square bracket ]
* The slash mark / tells it to end the font-style command
I use square brackets in the following comments so you can see the instructions and the syntax used:
Italics: put the word/phrase to be in italics in between [i] and [/i] italics
Boldface: put the word/phrase to be in bold in between [b] and [/b] boldface
Blockquote: put the word/phrase you want indented as a quoted remark in between [blockquote] and [/blockquote]
My comment wouldn’t show the greater-than sign or the less-than sign. Also, I got it backwards. Here it is again (correctly):
In the instructions below, when you actually type your comment:
* Use the less-than sign instead of the left square bracket [ - the less-than sign is above the comma
* Use the greater-than sign instead of the right square bracket ] – the greater-than sign is above the period
* The slash mark / tells it to end the font-style command
I use square brackets in the following comments so you can see the instructions and the syntax used:
Italics: put the word/phrase to be in italics in between [i] and [/i] italics
Boldface: put the word/phrase to be in bold in between [b] and [/b] boldface
Blockquote: put the word/phrase you want indented as a quoted remark in between [blockquote] and [/blockquote]
Testing…haha
It may or may not be important, but the two common Greek words for “power” – dunamis and exousia – have different semantic ranges. dunamis is more along the lines of ability; it is also translated as “miracle” in some passages. exousia is more along the lines of authority.
It is worth knowing that exousia was translated as potestas in Latin and “power” in English. The verses with exousia in them are the basis for many concepts in English where we use “power.” So exiousia is power/authority.
Therefore, when a doctrinal statement talks about Christ being equal in “power and glory” this was orignally potestas in Latin, and derived from scripture verses using exousia.
In fact, the translation pattern is –
- exousia – potestas (Vulgate) – power (KJV) – authority (RSV)
- dunamis – virtutis (Vulgate) – power (KJV)
Dunamis is power/ability/wonder
Exousia is power/authority/permission
Thanks for the notes on power, Eric and Tamar. I think my comment still stands, but perhaps I could replace “Romans 1:16″ with “I Cor. 7:4″
I found this interesting quote about mutual submission. It’s interesting that a husband’s submission is emphasized, but a wife’s submission is not specifically stated.
Family
11. The Bible teaches that husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life and that they are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility (1Cor 7:3-5; Eph 5:21; 1Peter 3:1-7; Gen 21:12). The husband’s function as “head” (kephale) is to be understood as self-giving love and service within this relationship of mutual submission (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:19; 1Peter 3:7).
Christians for Biblical Equality: Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/about/biblical_equality.shtml
I think that the emphasis put on a husband’s submission, without specifying what a wife’s submission looks like is problematic.
Here is Bonnie’s comment. I don’t mean to pick on Bonnie, but here it is.
You all can disagree with me on what I think of power in marraige – I don’t think that marriage is about personal power is what I said. Some disagreed with me.
Anyway, Molleth, I would invite you to read through posts to see for yourself. I’m not making this up.
Maybe people don’t like the term “balance of power”? I really can’t tell you why there are what seem to be denials. Others will have to clarify the nature of their objections.
—————-
Comment on Guest Author, Eric W: What Comp/Egal Tenets can be (or are) Used to Support Abuse? by bonnie3
Today, March 24, 2009, 17 hours ago | bonnie3
Webfoot said, It is impossible to have mutual submission if each one has personal authority. A husband’s authority is not personal. It is self-sacrificial. It is for the good of his family. It is the husband who is called on to love to the point of dying for his wife and I will add, family. He dies to self and serves His Lord and His family.
Is a wife’s love not to be self-sacrificial as well? I don’t believe that Paul in Eph. 5 is giving a narrow prescription for who is to love in what kind of way — he is simply telling husbands to sacrificially love their wives, and wives to submit to/respect their husbands. To add to (or take away from) this is foolishness. Nor do I think he is setting off one against the other, which is a false complementarity.
On power: to suggest that life, or marriage, is about an absence of power is, frankly, nonsense. Any thought or action that comes to bear on anyone or anything else has power. Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
The issue isn’t power itself; it’s what kind of power, and how it is used.
It’s hard to consider only the tenets without all the surrounding teaching. IMO, Complementarianism (which I know best) isn’t what we know without all the surrounding teaching. It’s kind of like examining only the skeleton instead of the whole body. There may be nothing wrong with the skeleton, but very much wrong with the liver, the heart, the brain, the central nervous system….
I’ve picked out the tenets I believe can be building blocks to an unhappy marriage/church.
I’ve boldened the words that can be abused. Interestingly, they are not to be found in the passages they quote to support the tenet. The words authority and leadership are not in the quoted texts. They have been added and are a product of one interpretation of the word “head”.
I think the idea that a husband, because he is head, has more authority than the wife, is one that is often misused. At least I’ve seen it misused a lot. Like Janice said in the first comment, most young husbands are not in the place, spiritually, to do this without abusing their “authority” or using it for their own benefit.
And it leaves me with the question, does a wife not have any authority that a husband may also resist?
I think that church is not so much about governing, but rather about serving. The word governing seems to imply authority, having more say, giving out rules….
As I said, it’s hard to expand on just the tenet. From my experience, it seems like Complementarian teaching on church places a lot of emphasis on who has authority over whom, and who doesn’t.
What is sin? Who decides whether something is sinful of not? I’ve met people with a varied range of conscience tenderness, and it baffles me what some people consider to be ok, while I also consider some people to be a bit overly sensitive. But the Bible addresse that, so I’d expect Christian governing authorities ought always to defer to those who have the most sensitive conscience. Sadly, it seems to me that governing authorities (in the home, the church or secular) usually get to decide what is going to be sin for those under them.
This is the most troubling of all for me. It’s the one that will keep people submitting or hanging on to authority out of fear that if they don’t stick to the rules all is lost.
In my opinion, Complementarianism is based on way too few selected scriptures. What about the Golden Rule? What about Philippians 2 and everyone’s call to be Christlike? In marriage, what about the command to leave father and mother and cleave to establish the marriage?
It seems like the focus is on deciding who is in authority, and the fear that if we don’t keep certain structures, all will be lost.
(I’m typing in a very noisy room, with plenty of interruptions! True to my role as home-maker, I’m at home, surrounded by children lol )
If we’re talking about abuse within marriage, don’t we also have to consider abuse within the church?
Recently, I did various searches on the Internet on terms such as ‘charismatic heretic’ and found allegations and gossip about fraud and other abuses pertaining to prominent ‘Christian’ television celebrities, male and female. So I wonder how far this debate is going to get us.
P.S. No offence to Charismatics intended; those just happened to be the kinds of terms I was using.
cndo:
The tenets of Complementarianism and Egalitarianism indicate the extent to which the sexes, based on sex, can do and not do various church-related things like teaching, be in a position of authority, be an elder, a pastor, etc.
Thus, this thread should also discuss which tenets of Compism and Egalism are used or can be used in and by the church to support the abuse of one sex by the other sex in and by the church – and not just which tenets of Compism and Egalism are used or can be used in marriage to support the abuse of one spouse by the other within the marriage.
Remember the topic of this thread: I.e., a listing of the specific tenets of Compism and/or Egalism which are or can be used to support the abuse of one spouse by the other, and a discussion/debate on how those specific tenets can be used in that improper way.
There are already at least one or two other current threads here that are more for simply discussing Complementarianism and Egalitarianism and other issues related to them.
“If we’re talking about abuse within marriage, don’t we also have to consider abuse within the church?”
I think so. IMO church abuse is catastrophic and mostly hidden ‘under the rug’. But we should approach it as Eric says. First cite the comp or egal tenet from primarily CBMW or CBE or perhaps a speaker applauded by either group as representing them, and then discuss how that tenet can be used for abuse.
Dude,
You rock, Eric!
We should put you in charge of all the posts. Way to keep us on track! We could use a little of that around here.
Queen of Tangents,
Molly
There is of course overlap. E.g., tenets which give men church leaders authority over women can be used by some church leaders to teach or promote or condone or overlook abusive behavior within marriages, so the church/marriage distinction isn’t always hard and fast.
Also, “covering” doctrines have been used to give church leaders (probably primarily male) unwarranted authority over both men and women parishioners and have allowed them to improperly (abusively?) interfere in marriages and marriage decisions (e.g., you are not allowed to get married without the permission of your “shepherd” – this happened to a friend of mine; he rejected it on biblical grounds and married his wife anyway).
”Also, “covering” doctrines have been used to give church leaders (probably primarily male) unwarranted authority over both men and women parishioners and have allowed them to improperly (abusively?) interfere in marriages and marriage decisions (e.g., you are not allowed to get married without the permission of your “shepherd”
This was part of the Shepherding Movement, which predated the Complementarian (CBMW) Movement. I experienced it firsthand in our town. Couples had to get the approval of the “shepherd” to get married, where to work, where to live, and more. Amazingly, some people came through unscathed. Others, were emotionally scarred for life. Some marriages later were dissolved. Some men coveted the authority they gained from that movement and have resisted the concept of true equality and mutuality, becoming unteachable and overbearing in the process. But it works for them, so they think. I’ve a very good friend I’ve known for 30+ years from that time. His wife has knuckled under and changed her personality to adjust.
I don’t agree with the ‘heavy shepherding’ movement either, TL (mandatory 10% tithing included).
There’s surely a middle way, though, between men/husbands ruling harshly as affected by the Fall, and acting androgonously.
Anyway, back to the tenets…
cndo,
Are you saying that men/husbands and women/wives having equal standing before both God and each other in terms of rulership amounts to androgyny? (Is this a tenet of complementarianism?) How can this be? If sex (male and female) is ontological, which I believe it is, then it’s certainly not something that must be acted in order to be proven, although it will be proven in action
. The action will flow from the ontology; it can do no other. Anything else is pretense. Sexual/gender ontology may, however, be corrupted or redeemed, and a person’s action will reflect this.
Would you please define what you mean by “acting androgonously [sic],” cndo? If one ungodly extreme is men/husbands ruling harshly, surely the opposite extreme is women/wives ruling harshly, not “acting androgynously.” Honestly, I have never seen or heard of anything that could be called “androgynous” being advocated by Christians as an alternative to men/husbands ruling over women/wives. I hope you’re not trying to characterize mutual submission in marriage as something androgynous, for neither husband nor wife stop being a man and woman respectively for obeying Scripture’s command to submit to one another when they choose to do so within their marriage.
For many of us egalitarian Chrsitians, the issue is that Scripture never commands or even commends that men/husbands rule women/wives, so we simply don’t see “ruling” in any sense as the best model for Christians to choose for their marriages or churches. In the New Testament church, men ruling women was the way of the world in which the church had to live (in it but not of it), of course, but Scripture shows a far more excellent way for believers to relate, in which no believe–including husband and wife–rules another, but both observe all the requirements of Christian relationships (loving sacrificially, submitting to one another, giving honor and respect to one another, considering the other as greater than oneself, etc.) even within their marriages. “Against such things there is no law.”
My parents made their marriage work without hierarchy. They were both givers. Perhaps that’s why it worked.
If my parents could make marriage work without hierarchy, why can’t others?
I have known of some Christian husbands who demand their wives obey them and do things their way based on an understanding of head as “authority” (kepahle) and submit as “obey.”
It’s interesting that the Greek Liddell Scott lexicon does not list “leader or authority” as a meaning for kephale (head). Yet some Christians give head that meaning. It’s also interesting that in Ephesians Paul tells children and slaves to obey, and wives to submit. This tells me that Paul saw obedience and submission as two different things.
I think the teaching that head (kephale) means authority and that submission means obey has caused some Christian husbands to think they can demand their own way all the time.
I think (but have not verified) that the “leadership” language might be a later development in traditional/complementarian thought. In trying to defend husbandly authority (which a husband does have) there has developed an apologetic of sorts which puts the cart before the horse. A husband has authority to take care of his family (as a wife does, although there are ways in which her care will differ because she’s female). This authority, though, is first and foremost a responsibility, as has been said on this blog earlier (there was a discussion specifically focusing on it a few months back, I think).
As such, whether one is comp. or egal, there is no room whatsoever for a husband to demand obedience. Whether or not his wife is submissive or obedient is outside of his jurisdiction. Likewise, a wife has no business “bossing” a husband.
“I don’t agree with the ‘heavy shepherding’ movement either, TL (mandatory 10% tithing included).
There’s surely a middle way, though, between men/husbands ruling harshly as affected by the Fall, and acting androgonously.”
Many complementarians don’t go the Shepherding Movement/heavy authoritarian way either, cndo. As Molleth has said on another post, there is a place there (without authoritarian concepts) that egals and comps can agree on even though we do not think in terms of headship or husbandly authority. However, as CBMW gets more and more authoritarian by applauding Ware, Wilson and Patterson (and others like them) , we may see more comps becoming authoritarian.
Regarding the “androgenous” idea, as others have said above, that is neither the alternative to authoritarian headship ideas, nor what egals believe in or support. Perhaps if you reviewed CBE’s tenets which are at the top of this thread, you will see that.
You know, I was thinking further about the androgeny thing and I see how someone could use that word.
Given that Piper’s well-recieved definitions of Biblical manhood and womanhood are fundamentally based on masculinity being the leading of women and femininity being submission to the male leadership, it makes sense that anyone believing these definitions would naturally see androgeny resulting if the leadership/submission aspect were taken away from male/female relationships.
So unless a person is able to see through the lens of an alternative paradigm such as the egal position (whether they agree with it or not), I’m not sure if they will be able to help seeing anything other than a promotion of androgeny in the egal argument.
I guess I still have trouble seeing how people can, or perhaps more accurately, I don’t want to believe that people actually do, redefine “masculinity,” “femininity,” and “androgyny” in such fundamental ways.
Ironically, we here at Complegalitarian were recently accused elsewhere of making words mean what they don’t mean. Perhaps these three are an example. Rather than “pertaining to the male,” “pertaining to the female,” and “possessing qualities of both male and female,” as they actually mean, maybe these three words are actually believed or intended to mean something entirely, fundamentally different. If so, no wonder it’s occasionally felt like I’m Alice when I’ve assumed the standard meaning of ordinary words was intended, only to find that, Humpty-Dumpty style, they’ve been meant to mean something entirely different, intentionally, by the user. In a few cases, there is an apparent need for the poor words to have been paid a great deal extra for all their extra work! (smile, with apologies to Lewis Carroll)
I can definitely see that in a scenario where masculinity was equated with leading and femininity with submitting that egalitarian relations related to androgyny. This was is fact the Aristotelian paradigm, that the male is designed for command and the female is designed for subjection. This was the scientific framework of the Greeks.
In this framework
- Christianity reinforces the cultural assumptions of male leadership.
- women are designed to submit and are therefore ontologically not equal to men
- science confirms that women are not capable of leadership
- experience confirms that women cannot survive without male leadership
These things need to be proven to be true. And then we must accept that Christ came to confirm the ontological need of the female to have the male make decisions for her, as Aristotle had already pointed out. Christ confirms Aristotle.
Aristotle was against androgyny. The male leads, the female follows. The Bible is really not half as clear as Aristotle was on this. I think we should do what the church has done in the past and ensure that our congregations are trained in the scientific rationale for the subjection of women.
Eric the Spell-checker here:
“a-n-d-r-o-g-y-n-y” from the Greek words:
anêr, andros (genitive form) = “man, husband”
+
gunê (gynê), gunaikos (gynaikos) (genitive form) = “woman, wife”
When the Greek upsilon is transliterated into English, it’s often transliterated with a “y,” though when it’s part of a diphthong it’s transliterated as a “u.” Hence, words that come from gunê like “gynecology” are spelled with a “y,” not a “u.”
“androgyny” means “andros” + “gynê” = man-woman.
That’s actually funny. While my spelling is normally abysmal (is that spelled correctly??lol), I’d actually had androgyny spelled correctly the first time, but I went back and changed it after seeing others replace the first y with an e. Shoot, I was assuming that if anyone was wrong, it had to be ME. *grins widely*
So…HA. There’s a first time for everything…
(PS. I like all of you spell-checkers around here).
Molly:
I’d gladly trade you my spelling skills for your writing skills!
I recently joined CBE and just got my first issue of “Mutuality”. In it there is critical review of the movie “Fireproof” which raised alarm bells. In his defense, the reviewer is very young, I am assuming unmarried, male, 2008 graduate of Bethel College. Anyway, here are a few clips from Mutuality Spring ‘09 page “The Fireman and His Princess: A Review of Fireproof” by Luke Finsaas :
1- he seems to equate the woman’s career with egalitarianism
2- I don’t resonate with his dismissal of the “woman is like a rose” metaphor. I thought it was lovely, and reminiscent of “nourish and cherish as your own body” and “honor as a weaker vessel and heir with you” metaphors of scripture”. IMO, If men in christian marriages took such metaphors to heart instead of dismissing them, there would be less divorce.
3- By far the most glaring omission of the movie (which I understand was probably logistically necessary) is not even mentioned by Mr Finsaas- the couple was childless. Putting children into the mix adds layers and layers of complication, responsibility, and strain into a marriage.
I’d be concerned if my daughter married a young man with such views. He refers to “Being a provider and defender” as a “myth of masculinity”. He speaks of the “immature shoddy chivalry” of flowers and chocolate, but is he rejecting all forms of male chivalry as “paternalistic”? Would he get up and give a pregnant woman his seat on the bus? How will he respond to his wife when she is worn down pregnant, nursing, post-partum? I don’t hear any acknowledgment of differences between men and women, nor the value of accommodating child nurturing into the fabric of life.
Charis,
You make good points. I applaud your discernment skills.
“1- he seems to equate the woman’s career with egalitarianism”
I don’t think so. It seemed to me more along the line that he was concerned that the value of her work was demeaned.
Egals do not equate a wife working as a requirement of equal treatment. Men and women are equal as human beings. What they do with their lives should be an issue of choice. I don’t see requiring men OR women to fit into any kind of cultural or tradition box as treating them equally or valuing their individuals gifts and skills.
….. continuing what I left off …..
though she was given the free choice to work, her work was devalued. That is what I gathered from his comment.
The Egalitarian tenet that a women may be an elder could theoretically cause abuse to a family that holds to Complementarianism for marriage (Tit. 2:5) but Egalitarianism for church leadership (single point Complementarianism), in that if the wife were to become an elder, she would have authority over her husband.
I suppose someone might argue that since churches have multiple elders the authority is not direct, but is ‘the will of the church’ (maybe even ‘God’s will for the church’!).
”The Egalitarian tenet that a women may be an elder could theoretically cause abuse to a family that holds to Complementarianism for marriage (Tit. 2:5) but Egalitarianism for church leadership (single point Complementarianism), in that if the wife were to become an elder, she would have authority over her husband.”
Cndo – The exercise of authority that an elder holds does not extend into the inner workings of a marriage. Elders are typically involved in teaching the Word, in counseling, preaching, church administration. Church leadership regardless of whether it is comprised of men or women should never interfere in a marriage relationship except for gross sin, in which the interference is one of assistance.
Cndo,
Do you have a problem with the concepts of women in the work force? Do you think that only men should work, or that a husband and wife should not work for the same company, or that only men should hold executive positions in corporations? What about a woman as President or Vice President? What about female police officers?
What exactly is it that challenges the emotional security of a man by having a woman direct him?
Believer3,
I’m not a three point Complementarian (so far!), so I don’t have a problem with women in the work force, especially if they have the opportunity to take off sufficient time to bring up any children they might have.
After all, Deborah was a political leader during the time of the Judges (albeit it wasn’t a high point in Israel’s closeness to Yahweh).
In the city near where I live, there’s a charismatic church led by a married female pastor. From a single point Complementarian point of view (Complementarianism in marriage but not in church leadership), this seems irregular; you would expect the husband to be the pastor. Perhaps they are two point egalitarians.
In the same city, there is also a Baptist church where there are two female elders, one of whom is called an Associate Pastor (she’s just completed her theological training, and is on probation for a while); her husband works as an administrator at a church in another town. Again, from a single point Complementarian point of view, this seems irregular; you would expect the leader in the marriage also to be the pastor. But perhaps they are two point egalitarians, too.
Could you envisage these not seeming irregular, even from a single point Complementarian point of view?
“Could you envisage these not seeming irregular, even from a single point Complementarian point of view?”
Yes, I can, because of the question of gifting. God calls whomsoever he will. Even though more men are called to leadership ministries than women, this does not give men entitlement. It is merely an observation that may give some expectation. Not all men are gifted as leaders. Not all women are SAHM types as we think of them, even when they do stay at home when the children are young.
And BTW Deborah was not a political leader, she was a spiritual leader. The Judges were all God appointed. Israel did not become political until the kings, which God warned them would not work out as well as Judges and Prophets. Just a side note
I will say though, that because we live in a sinful world which does great damage to the psychological make up of both men and women, my guess is that the majority of men and women of any camp might have some difficulty figuring out how to function when the wife is in any high responsibility leadership position whether in work, government or church. Think of Palin’s husband, who BTW seems a positive example of a man settled within his own masculinity enough to not feel threatened by his wife’s work.
It was interesting to look at that one huge Chinese church (name of it is eluding me at the moment) and see that just as many women as men felt called to leadership positions—and were quite effective in them. It appears that when the expectation of “men only” is taken off of women (assuming that is not a godly expectation, for the sake of assuming), just as many women as men DO feel called to leadership roles.
So either the women there are decieved, or perhaps God calls more women than we might think, but the church stands in the way of such callings.
Believer3,
Thank you for reminding me of the Ro. 12 list, which tells us by implication that not all are gifted to lead.
You are welcome cndo. so what do you recommend when a husband is not gifted at leadership>
Molleth,
I think I remember that the same Chinese pastor when asked how his church had grown so fast and so big replied, you need to release your women. Many find his response ridiculous…
I think the Chinese pastor is Paul Yonghi Cho, perhaps I am wrong or misspelling his name.
Paul Yonghi Cho did say that the Western church needed to release their women. But he’s not Chinese. He’s Korean.
Thanks, all. Appreciate the fact-finding.
TL: ‘You are welcome cndo. so what do you recommend when a husband is not gifted at leadership>’
The same as for a single man who is not gifted at leadership, of course! I understand the gift of leadership in Romans 12 to be over and above headship in marriage.
On the abuse post, 3-23 , Webfoot wrote:
”I think that the Egalitarian teaching that marriage is about a balance of power is problematic and unbiblical. Marriage is not about power at all.”
On the Egals Smell Funny post, 6-11, 4:37pm, Webfoot writes:
”The man was given more power and he weilds it harsly after the fall. This was part of the curse put on the woman for her rebellion” “So, there is a power struggle in marriage, in the church, and in society at large.” ———— “So, yes it is about power”.
How do you explain this reverse in your thinking , Webfoot?
Complementarians generally don’t use the terms “power” and “empowerment” when speaking of Christian marriage. Those are Egalitarian terms.
We would tend to talk about equilibrium and balance, not power and empowerment.
Can you find me quotes from Complementarian literature that speaks of marriage in those terms unless they are quoting Egalitarian sources?
We talk about leadership, servanthood, submission, obedience, and so forth.
You folks are the ones who talk about power and empowerment.
I Was quoting you Webfoot!
TL, read carefully what I said, if you have time. You will see that I attributed “power” and “empowerment” to Egalitarians, and “equilibrium” and “balance” to Complementarians.
So, what are you trying to tell me? You wouldn’t be trying to slander or discredit me somehow, would you?
Webfoot,
Exactly what is kept in equilibrium and balance?
These are all your words Webfoot.
“Egalitarianism assumes that the man has the power, and the woman is in the position of weakness. So, women need to be empowered so that the power will be equal.
In a way Egalitarians are correct. The man was given more power and he weilds it harsly after the fall.”
First you claim to tell us what we believe, then you agree with us.
Please note that egals do not believe that men have been given power over women. They may think they have, but we do not see it in Scripture.
Nevertheless, I would be interested in what you have to say to Don’s question.