My Latest Attempt To Become a Complementarian

155 thoughts on “My Latest Attempt To Become a Complementarian”

1. Curtis,
   Sorry for the very late response (I lost track of this thread) but, yes, agreed; you’re right, ‘epistemic’ seems the clearer term here.

   LikeLike

2. o.h., regarding RC priestesses:
   I think you’re referring to the theory that women are invalid matter for the sacrament, in the same way that barley flour would be invalid matter for the host. I did not mean to endorse this theory, which is just one theory among many. I also find none of them entirely convincing.

   The ontological (or perhaps more accuarately, epistemic) dilemma I was referring to is the existence of the priestly character conferred at the sacrament of ordination. This is what any honest Catholic cannot know with certainty. Certainty comes from the unanimous testimony of Scripture and Tradition, confirmed by the Magisterium, all of which is lacking in this case. Agreed?

   LikeLike

3. I don’t think any complementarian would see anything in Ecclesiastes 7:27-29 except a poetic statement of “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” That is really all you can say about it, given Koholeth’s propensity to pit proverb against proverb and test the limits of the wisdom tradition. Fixating on Hebrew words misses the point of the poetic and rhetorical structure of Ecclesiastes, John. Obviously neither complementarians nor egalitarians are going to get much mileage out of a book that so resolutely defies the glib answers both sides seem to like so much. 🙂

   LikeLike

4. It is definitely unclear to me where the Bible ever calls a woman with the term used in Ecclesiastes 7:29. I probably tossed out my only Hebrew lexicon and even so I am not sure it would have had an exhaustive entry for yshr “upright”–which doesn’t actually occur in verse 28 (but does in verse 29 according to my good ole BHS) but is apparently inferred somehow by NIV.

   This brings me to a point: if complementarians rely on a secret rulebook of interpretations, egalitarians seem to counter-rely on unchallengable dictates of common sense.

   What is the point of useless exegesis?

   LikeLike

5. I have met a few too many bitter single dudes who put all the emphasis on v 28 and not on v 29. Of course bitter single complementarian Reformed males are, I hope, a highly skewed sample of what a complementaarian take on Ecclesiastes 7:27 is!

   Ditto Wordgazer. Solomon’s first wife mentioned in Kings was an Egyptian, which suggests that on marriage he started out bad with respect to foreign women and went downhill over time, some of the more fanciful theories about Shunamites withstanding.

   LikeLike

6. Ecclesiastes is a book about the observations of one man about what he has seen in life. Since the author is presumed to be Solomon, who had 1000 wives and concubines who led him to worship idols– I would conjecture that his experiences with them led to his observation.

   But an observation is not the same as a statement of truth. There are many upright women in the Bible.

   LikeLike

7. Can anyone point out what the complementarian theory is (*not what they think it would be) for Ecclesiastes 7:27 etc. (NIV here)

   “Look,” says the Teacher, “this is what I have discovered:
   “Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things-

   28 while I was still searching
   but not finding—
   I found one upright man among a thousand,
   but not one upright woman among them all.

   29 This only have I found:
   God made mankind upright,
   but men have gone in search of many schemes.”

   I am more interested in knowing because I am curious about Ecclesiastes, but perhaps it also carries some weight on the matter.

   LikeLike

8. EricW, I understand what you’re saying. I probably tried to say too much in too few words. If I am understanding Romans 5 correctly, it is an argument of how the act of one person, Christ, could atone for many. I think I probably agree with you that he uses Adam the individual to compare. I just think it’s Adam in his capacity as the first human and not in his capacity as the first male. I think some people are bound to have a narrow view of Adam if they can only see him as the first male. Realizing that God made a human in two sexes and called them Adam helps expand the thinking of those who see the first female only as Eve (the name by which she was referred to only after the Fall) and not as an integral part of God’s creation of man (Genesis 1:27).
   Anyway, where Romans 5:18 says “even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life,” I’m banking on it that “men” refers to me too even though I’m a woman.

   LikeLike

9. A possible objection to that, bonnie, is that Paul in Romans 5 specifically refers to the “one” man, not man in general or mankind/Adam as the couple Adam & Eve, and uses that to contrast the one sin of the one man Adam with the one act of righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ. I.e., he’s talking about a single act by a single individual that affected “all” or “the many.” He says Adam was a “type” of the one man Jesus Christ who was to come.

   LikeLike

10. Just another point about sin coming through the first man Adam: Genesis 5:2 says that God called the male and female humans that He had created “Adam” (“called their name Adam”). Jack Hayford described it as a sort of Mr. and Mrs. Adam. After the Fall, Adam (the male part) calls his wife “Eve,” the mother of all living.

    So, I read Romans 5 as depicting how sin came through the first human (not specifically the first male) and how salvation came through Christ.

    LikeLike

11. A few things:

    The Adam/Christ typology has nothing to do with heads or households. Those words occur nowhere near the Adam/Christ language in Paul. That typology has everything to do with Paul’s distinction between the Old Man/New Man (which is not about individuals) and also the Kingdom, since Kingdom language shows up whenever Adam language does. (It’s hidden in Romans 5 since it the verb form of the words which we translate as ‘reign.’)

    Now, before someone says: “aha! Adam must have been the King of his wife Eve” please remember that the idea of kingship is radically subverted by the cross of Jesus. The cross of Jesus is what the Kingdom of God looks like. That’s a slightly different concept of kingship. But Paul seems to be thinking about ‘headship’ in that way in Eph 5.

    Also, I ask that anyone who wants to use 1 Tim 2:11-14 to justify their complementarianism, please first explain what 1 Tim 2:15 means, and how it fits with the rest of revealed scripture. If you don’t know what it means, and thus ignore it for your understanding of salvation, please explain why you are upset with egalitarians for doing the exact same thing with the three verses prior to 1 Tim 2:15.

    Also, the pro-slavery exegesis in the south ultimately failed because it left out the Exodus proper. The Book of Exodus was not allowed to be preached in the old south. Once I realized that the Exodus story is the beating heart of the OT, the OT made a whole lot more sense, and all that stuff about slaves in the law is diminished. If God is a God who sets slaves free, justifying slavery in his name becomes a whole lot more unbiblical.

    In other words, the pro-slavery folks weren’t right about the fullness of the Bible, and neither are the complementarians.

    LikeLike

12. Curtis (if you’re still checking the thread):

    You said “In Catholicism, the question of female ordination is ontological: “Can a woman be a priest?””

    This isn’t right; in Catholicism, the question of female ordination is constitutional. In fact, when the question needed clarification, the teaching was carefully phrased as “the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women.” Ordination is denied because of how the Church is constituted, not because of what women are. Deliberate care was taken to avoid the ontological question entirely.

    There are plenty of theories as to why women aren’t to be ordained: and certainly ontology is one theory. The most popular these days is the “icon of Christ” theory (which I find unconvincing). But no Catholic is obliged to buy a particular theory, or to buy that there is some ontological distinction between men and women such that women *cannot* be ordained. The only thing a Catholic is obliged to believe is that the Church lacks divine authority to ordain women.

    LikeLike

13. ScottL:

    Adam was the first human of the Old Creation, and Jesus was both the last Adam/human of the Old Creation and the first human of the New Creation. Maybe that’s why they did and were able to do what they did. I don’t know that Adam’s headship over his wife was a factor in his bringing sin into the world.

    LikeLike

14. EricW –

    People usually do and function according to their roles. I wonder why Christ was able to DO what He did – bring life and righteousness for the redeemed? I wonder why the first Adam was able to DO what He did – bring sin and condemnation to humanity?

    Those are simply questions I ponder when reading the passage. What gave them the right to be able to bring certain consequences and benefits to the human race? I wonder if it is because they had some kind of lead role. It’s truly possible.

    LikeLike

15. When it comes to following the Scriptures, when it comes to trying to figure out which of myriad interpretations to follow, I think one simple idea is best– go with what Jesus said was the most important: “Love God and love one another,” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is my strong opinion that if any interpretation of Scripture violates these very basic principles, that interpretation cannot be correct.

    Wow, KR, you summed it up perfectly.

    I came to a similar conclusion in 2006 or so, but truly wondered if it would mean giving up my faith altogether or become one of those “liberals” who believes in God but doesn’t believe the Bible is God-breathed in any sense of the term.

    Astonishment upon astonishment, as I combed through the Scriptures (the very Scriptures I already “knew” backwards and forwards) looking to see if complementarianism could be wrong, looking to see if there was another possible conclusion, I discovered that I didn’t have to do any twisting, any warping, any ignoring of any text at all! I just had to take off the comp-interpretation glasses (which had been doing a lot more twisting and bending of passages than I’d been aware of, as iMonk points out in this post)…

    It really surprised me (because of my 100% females-are-subordinate upbringing and young-adult training/experiences) to see that the Bible can be *legitimately* viewed in non-complementarian ways. I think Scot McNight’s “Blue Parakeet” goes into that better than I could here, so I’ll leave it at that. 🙂

    LikeLike

16. Martha, thanks for your info about the alleged Pope Joan. I almost missed your comment. I use a “Feeds” thing that I click on that is supposed to show me all the comments since last time I was on the page. But it seems that it often only shows me some of them. I don’t know why.

    LikeLike

17. PS. I spoke strongly out of my deep passion about these matters– but my words, though directed to Parsifal, should not be construed as a belief that he is against me in what I just said, or as an attack on anyone who has posted here.

    LikeLike

18. Parsifal:

    Is it intuition? Is our current understanding of African-Americans as fully human and fully equal a result of intuition– or a healthy dose of reality?

    African-Americans had to fight and struggle and give their lives to prove that they were fully human. The world was finally convinced– and so, eventually, was the church. And women have been fighting and struggling, enduring incredible mistreatment and persecution, to prove that they are fully human too. The world is finally convinced– and maybe, 50 years from now, the church will be, too.

    The Bible has never denied these things; it has supported them. Against the backdrop of a patriarchal culture shine the stories of Ruth and Naomi, Deborah, Hannah, Mary, Elizabeth, Phoebe, Priscilla. The Bible shows Philip speaking to the Ethiopian eunuch with the same respect God was teaching the young Jewish-Christian church to have for all Gentiles. The story that man and woman were both told to “fill the earth and subdue it” and that all mankind bears the image of God, have always been there for all to see. It is simply that sometimes we need stark reality to hit us in the faces before we will see what’s been there all along.

    When it comes to following the Scriptures, when it comes to trying to figure out which of myriad interpretations to follow, I think one simple idea is best– go with what Jesus said was the most important: “Love God and love one another,” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is my strong opinion that if any interpretation of Scripture violates these very basic principles, that interpretation cannot be correct.

    So– if you would not like to be required to stay in subordinate roles, told to remain silent, relegated to a narrow set of life choices, taught that you can’t take care of yourself, and judged as rebellious for protesting any of this– then don’t do it to someone of another race, or the opposite gender.

    Seems simple enough– and Biblical enough– to me.

    LikeLike

19. to Clark (way at the top):

    “paying for groceries, rent and utilities is hardly a spiritual endevor.”

    That seems to be a little dualistic thinking you got going on there. A good understanding of shalom might help to clear things up a bit.

    LikeLike

20. Wordgazer: I don’t disagree with most of what you said. It’s just helpful to recognize how intuitive this approach is. It’s the same thing Southern Christians did during the antebellum period–using strict biblical exegesis to justify slavery (and many abolitionists agreed that they had the better of the argument from a sola scriptura point of view), but abandoning scripture altogether (or nearly so) and embracing the self-evident truth that africans, and only africans, were inferior people who needed the protection of their Christian masters. They did not attempt to justify their racism with appeals to scripture; it was intuitive, obvious, self-evident. Times change, the culture changes, and what seemed an eternal truth 150 years ago now has few defenders.

    A lot of us operate out of intuition, and that’s what this thread feels like, but it’s not a persuasive position when discussing stuff like this. “I just feel . . .” isn’t real satisfying.

    For all my own handwringing about the folks who want to dot every theological “i” and cross every theological “t” and seem to get dangerously close to loving the Theology more than the Theos, I do admire their commitment to take the Bible seriously. And so I tend not to get real excited about intuitive arguments. Pro-life arguments are good examples (often weak on exegesis and strong on intuition). Some of that intuitive argument applies to women’s issues as well. So, following WC-1, I’m trying to understand better how to interpret Scripture, but with the realization that it is an interpretation and that the reasons why I choose to interpret it in one way may have more to do with presuppositions, prejudices or cultural commmitments than with some degree of objectivity. I just don’t trust myself enough at the moment to think I can understand what truth is eternal and what truth is culturally based. But it’s good to be thinking about it without having to make any decisions!

    LikeLike

21. ScottL:

    You are correct that the words ‘head’ and ‘headship’ do not occur in Rom 5:12-21. I want to be faithful and careful to read certain things into the passage. This is why I do say that I only lean that way, but won’t be dogmatic, giving room here. [Of course, everyone thinks I am dogmatic because this is my third comment on the topic and verse. :)]

    But, even in your own wording that the better analogy is that Adam ‘collapsed the quantum wave function into a sin state’ or ‘he poked a hole in the dike’ still recognises Adam’s role (head role) in bringing in sin. Paul didn’t put that weight on Eve, though she ate first. He put that on Adam. Sin came in through the first Adam. We have to consider what that means.

    Also, knowing that Rom 5:12-21 does compare the roles of the first and second Adam, and noting that the second Adam (Christ) is the head of His people (Eph 4:15; Col 2:18-19), the church, then I think it is worth considering that Adam also had a headship role over his family/wife and over all humanity. If Adam actually did have headship over the human race as the prophet, priest and king of his day (which I believe Rom 5 speaks to) by his responsibility for sin coming to all humanity, then I would say it is probable to infer that he had headship over his wife. Adam having headship over the larger group (all humanity) would probably lead us to conclude he would have headship over the smaller group (his family/wife).

    These are things I have considered.

    To me, Romans 5 seems to be about what Adam did and what Christ did, not what “role” they filled as, e.g., federal “head” of the human race or “head” of the male-female marriage relationship. I think reading a headship “role” into this passage is making it bear more weight or say more than was intended.

    LikeLike

22. Scott1,

    I think that by reading headship into Romans 5, you are doing the same thing you advise Dawn not to do in 1 Timothy 2. No offense, but that’s the way it’s looking to me.

    Austin– I believe all the Scriptures are to be interpreted in their cultural context. However, there are certain truths that are eternal and not culturally based, such as the Incarnation and the Atonement. Since they are eternal, not relating to temporal human matters, these are much less subject to the vagaries of human interpretation.

    Parcifal, I agree that Biblical interpretation in the way we’re discussing it here is very Protestant and probably American as well. As for the idea that we are trying to achieve a “desired” result– I may be guilty of that. However, I agree with what Internet Monk explains in his next blog: there are certain overall ideas I have about the nature of God which make it impossible for me to believe certain doctrines. Limited Atonement is one– that’s something I just can’t bring myself to consider a just, impartial, loving God would do. Another is the contradiction implied in making men and women in the image of God to be over the Creation together, and then saying that it is also God’s eternal plan that men are designed to be in “headship” over their wives and women are designed to follow their husbands; that women cannot have any authority in the church; that women are relegated only to roles that are under men. I cannot believe that the God I love would do this. I cannot bring myself to swallow the logical contradiction of “men and women are equal, but men are more equal.”

    LikeLike

23. One example of such a extreme fringe group of complimentarianism would be Vision Forum, who espouse that women are not to vote, drive a car, ever work outside of the home, and have even gone so far as to not allow females to partake of communion unless her husband or father allows her to do so. — Dawn Wilson

    Do they also slice off her clit?
    Sew her into a burqa?
    Lock her in a guarded harem?
    And keep an Honor Killing ready in case she ever gets Uppity?

    LikeLike

24. My Hebrew prof told us it was “one who fits,” and was a further description of one flesh. — IMonk

    As well as a subtle off-color pun.

    LikeLike

25. Sorry, I meant, “what does this have to with complimentarianism?” Too many blogs.

    LikeLike

26. I don’t know that we can say what Paul would wonder. Jesus came from the lower levels of society the last time. If He came again as a gay, homeless, illegal alien I suspect we might crucify him again.

    Heck, if He came again looking like He did back then, He’d look like a terrorist. No papers. Won’t answer direct questions. Hangs out with the outcasts of society. Draws a crowd to hear his revolutionary teachings. Contradicts religious leaders. He can walk on water but could he breathe when waterboarded?

    What does this have to do with theology? Simple. If the Bible were written now, it would likely be TOTALLY different. It would not rubber-stamp our feeble interpretation of God’s mind, but rather blow ours.

    LikeLike

27. Jonathan Edwards view of the ideal church: I tell you what the Bible says and turn it into big time theology. My wife and children are amazed at me. My church only expects me to emerge from my study a couple of times a week. I really enjoy debating whether the real world matters at all in how we apply scripture. Then I go back to a church totally submerged in a particular culture and denounce missional churches as apostate.

    This seems to me to be what a lot of folks are shooting for. — IMonk

    I call that sort of expectation “Making Your Pastor into a God”. My writing partner (a burned-out country preacher) has to deal with such Expectation of Perfection all the time. And the Righteous Wrath when the Church Ladies find out he’s only a man after they’ve made him into an absolutely-perfect god figure.

    (And I’m not sure Jonathan Edwards hasn’t gotten the same treatment — one of the most brilliant minds of his tims, and the only thing he’s known for is Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, i.e. the archetype Hellfire & Damnation sermon.)

    It’s like the Expectation of Perfection you get from the women who sign up for Christian Dating services — I’m not sure that even Christ Himself would fall short of those expectations.

    And the Expectation of Perfection I grew up with after being diagnosed as a Kid Genius in the era of Sputnik.

    P.S. 125 comments counting this one — sure this thread isn’t about a REAL hot button like Sex or Evolution?

    LikeLike

28. austin,

    Then aren’t we already on that slippery slope? Or does your church practice head-covering for women? What about your church’s stance on long hair for men or short hair for women?

    The fact is… Most Evangelicals ALREADY put some scripture into cultural context. Read Fee’s “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth” as an guide to how we already do this — but how we should do it properly (guided).

    LikeLike

29. This will be my last comment on this thread. I’ve already invested too much time on it, but thanks Michael, it’s been thoroughly enjoyable and beneficial to me.

    I am in an interesting position working in healthcare as a hospice chaplain. My interdisciplinary team of nurses, social workers, health aides, and chaplains is made up of dozens of women and 4 men. All my team leaders and supervisors are women. The CEO of the organization is a woman. Every hospital I go into is staffed mostly by women. Most caregivers that I deal with in homes or nursing homes are women. My work involves supporting and complementing the work of women. I report and answer to women. My performance evaluations are done by women.

    I might also say that my primary hero in ministry was my grandmother, who visited and cared for elderly friends and neighbors most of her life. When I was a pastor in local churches for 25+ years, the majority of the real work of the ministry was done by women. My wife has always worked as a nurse, and now runs her own business as a mental health counselor.

    I am not threatened by women.

    I have an idea that many who argue so strongly for patriarchal interpretations might be.

    Just a thought.

    LikeLike

30. EricW –

    Since neither the word “headship” nor “head” occur in Romans 5, is it proper to overlay those terms on what Paul is saying there? Isn’t a better analogy that Adam collapsed the quantum wave function into a “sin” state? Or, perhaps, he poked a hole in the dike and let sin flood in and make everyone wet?

    You are correct that the words ‘head’ and ‘headship’ do not occur in Rom 5:12-21. I want to be faithful and careful to read certain things into the passage. This is why I do say that I only lean that way, but won’t be dogmatic, giving room here. [Of course, everyone thinks I am dogmatic because this is my third comment on the topic and verse. :)]

    But, even in your own wording that the better analogy is that Adam ‘collapsed the quantum wave function into a sin state’ or ‘he poked a hole in the dike’ still recognises Adam’s role (head role) in bringing in sin. Paul didn’t put that weight on Eve, though she ate first. He put that on Adam. Sin came in through the first Adam. We have to consider what that means.

    Also, knowing that Rom 5:12-21 does compare the roles of the first and second Adam, and noting that the second Adam (Christ) is the head of His people (Eph 4:15; Col 2:18-19), the church, then I think it is worth considering that Adam also had a headship role over his family/wife and over all humanity. If Adam actually did have headship over the human race as the prophet, priest and king of his day (which I believe Rom 5 speaks to) by his responsibility for sin coming to all humanity, then I would say it is probable to infer that he had headship over his wife. Adam having headship over the larger group (all humanity) would probably lead us to conclude he would have headship over the smaller group (his family/wife).

    These are things I have considered.

    LikeLike

31. thanks, treebeard.

    i’ve had that “slippery slope” conversation so many times, i guess it’s just reflex now to come back at it. somehow, because of the political and culture war climate, folks think the conversation must necessarily move from women’s issues to the “homosexual agenda.”

    LikeLike

32. Chaplain Mike, don’t take me that seriously. I was just having fun. I wasn’t at all referring to any slippery slope argument. I just enjoyed the thought of the apostle Paul reappearing among us and wondering why leftist dogma had not yet been completely enacted.

    LikeLike

33. Jonathan Edwards view of the ideal church: I tell you what the Bible says and turn it into big time theology. My wife and children are amazed at me. My church only expects me to emerge from my study a couple of times a week. I really enjoy debating whether the real world matters at all in how we apply scripture. Then I go back to a church totally submerged in a particular culture and denounce missional churches as apostate.

    This seems to me to be what a lot of folks are shooting for.

    LikeLike

34. Austin, are you saying there are NO “cultural” or “situational” aspects to be considered when interpreting Scripture?

    LikeLike

35. Amen Imonk,

    But there in is the dangerous slope of saying some part of the epistles are to be interpreted in their cultural context while others are not.

    I’m not equating a woman in ministry to homosexaul marriage just pointing out that the same “context” argument is used by both.

    LikeLike

36. treebeard:
    please don’t buy into the tired “slippery slope” argument. There is all the difference in the world between arguing for equality between the sexes and arguing for giving an equal Biblical and moral status to both hetero- and homosexual orientations. Those who say that one necessarily leads to the other are either using illegitimate culture war logic to oppose it, or illegitimate progressive logic to promote it.

    LikeLike

37. There is no way to look at headship, even in the kindest most generous sense, without describing a role of mediation in the spiritual life of another believer.

    This kind of mediation, whether it be papacy, clergy, or marital hierarchy, negates the new covenant reality of our direct relationship with God in Christ. He is our head, He is our source, not another. To put another in that role is damaging to both parties.

    Yes, our marriages should reflect mutual love, honor, submission, complementing one another in our gifts and roles, preferring one another – all of the qualities that should be fruit in our lives as we each submit to the headship of Christ.

    LikeLike

38. Fascinating thread.

    It should put to rest any notion that there is such a thing as sola scriptura.

    There is no Scripture; there is only interpreted Scripture, and the interpretations on this thread are all over the map.

    It also suggests that while the Bible is still authoritative in the sense that it’s the beginning point for attempting to understand any particular issue, extra-biblical material (e.g. Roman practices or My Experience or Word Studies) are routinely used as interpretive tools to reach a result (maybe even the “desired” result) that then becomes My Belief. It is a very protestant American approach to biblical interpretation.

    The implications for interpreting other issues are equally fascinating. My guess is that those who are rigorous biblical exegetes on issue X are less so on issue Y. I suspect that cultural factors as much as a quest for Truth determines the result. If, for example, we say The Bible and Only the Bible is our guide in all matters of faith and practice, then we’d have to admit that there is much more scriptural support for the institution of slavery than for a complementarian understanding of gender. And we’d have to admit that there is much more scriptural support for complementarianism than there is for prohibiting abortion in all cases.

    But we routinely find extra-biblical sources of authority to reach a result we intuitively believe to be true. Of course, by appealing to these sources, we impliedly concede that the plain meaning of scripture is never very plain.

    LikeLike

39. Just saying that Rom 5 does seem to present the headship role of two men – the first Adam and the second Adam.

    Since neither the word “headship” nor “head” occur in Romans 5, is it proper to overlay those terms on what Paul is saying there? Isn’t a better analogy that Adam collapsed the quantum wave function into a “sin” state? Or, perhaps, he poked a hole in the dike and let sin flood in and make everyone wet? And Christ went beyond simply reversing those effects, but 1) restored man’s “state” to one that could not collapse again into sin, or 2) not only dried people off, but made them waterproof and unsinkable?

    LikeLike

40. Would that be before or after he repudiated Romans 1? 🙂

    LikeLike

41. “If Paul instructed them like this, what might he write to a society like ours, in which women are full members of the culture at every level?”

    Paul would write, “You mean gays can’t marry yet? How long does this societal transformation stuff take?”

    LikeLike

42. Dawn –

    I think you are mixing two passages – Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Tim 2:13-14.

    Read the Rom 5 passage carefully. Now, I’m not dogmatic on this, but I was just sharing where I lean. Paul says sin came to humanity through the one man. It seems the first Adam had a headship role since sin came to humanity through his one sin. Paul shows this headship in comparing it with the second Adam (Christ) having His headship role. Both Adam’s are heads of their houses – one brought sin and condemnation to his house, the other brought life and righteousness to his house.

    Of course we have to consider Scripture with Scripture. So we can consider 1 Tim 2 with this subject. And, the practical deception did come to Eve, as we read in 1 Tim 2:14. But you stated, ‘Eve ate deceived – Adam ate willingly and with full knowledge.’ It’s probable that this is a full conclusion of 1 Tim 2:14, but the passage only tells us that Eve was deceived. It does not conclude with the words ‘willingly’ and ‘with full knowledge’ in regards to Adam. Those might be implied, but we have to be careful not to eisegete (read those words into the text), since the words are not implicitly stated by Paul.

    Anyways, I digress…

    Just saying that Rom 5 does seem to present the headship role of two men – the first Adam and the second Adam. That is why I lean towards men having a headship role. But never, ever would I say this is some domineering role. Headship and submission are to be healthy and good words, not domineering words. Even husbands are to be in complete and faithful relationship with their partner, listening to their partner, even willing to submit to the other’s advice at times (Eph 5:22f).

    LikeLike

43. Jeremiah Lawson said,

    “Understood Wordgazer, I was expanding on Kirk’s observations.”

    Jeremiah, due to the timeframe in which the comments got posted, I had not read yours yet when I wrote my last. 🙂

    LikeLike

44. Another point to mention when it comes to Paul’s epistles, especially Ephesians and Colossians, is that Paul’s commands to members of the household, generally speaking, were not in any way countercultural to the Roman society. They too had “house-tables” in which the various members of the household were given their responsibilities. Paul adopted this form to teach the Christians at Ephesus and Colossae. However, his house-tables had some significant variations:

    (1) Paul addressed not only those UNDER authority, but also those IN authority. In fact, those considered in authority are usually given many more instructions than those in lower positions. The Romans did not do this. Their ethic was all about subordinating the lower strata of society.

    (2) Paul gives Christ-centered motivations for the behaviors he urges, not exhortations based on the natural order like those to which the Romans appealed.

    These two facts make these instructions, in fact, SUBVERSIVE to the household order of Roman society! If those IN authority, are not in fact really in authority but under the authority of God just like those under them, this tends to level the playing field and equalize the parties being addressed. And if everyone is addressed equally as a person in Christ, there ultimately is no distinction between any of them.

    Why did Paul use this form in this way? I, in agreement with many commentators, think he did so in order to encourage believers to be GOOD EXAMPLES in the communities where they lived, to show that they too had orderly households, that they were upright citizens in their society. However, the Christian truth that informs Paul’s instructions ultimately leads to the end of institutions like slavery and patriarchy.

    If Paul instructed them like this, what might he write to a society like ours, in which women are full members of the culture at every level?

    LikeLike

45. JoanieD – yes about the cardinals. A cardinal can be a layperson.

    No about Pope Joan. Wikipedia has a useful summation of the main facts; it originated as a tale in the 13th century and may have been a satire against an individual Pope, but like all good travellers’ tales, it grew legs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

    Let’s give it this much credence: a woman disguises herself as a man to follow her lover abroad (this is the theme of many folksongs, after all). She gains a position in the curial offices due to her learning, and rises up the ranks to be elected Pope. However, she is pregnant by her lover, and is revealed by giving birth in the street unexpectedly and consequently stoned to death.

    Let’s swallow all that and say it’s true. Was she ever really Pope? No, because the sacrament of orders cannot be conferred upon a woman. So Joan, or Agnes, or whatever her name was, was no more a real Pope than the several current sedevacantists who have proclaimed that they are the real Pope – e.g. Pope Michael I “David Allen Bawden (born September 22, 1959), self-styled as Pope Michael I, is an American citizen and papal claimant. His claim to the papacy is supported by a small group of Conclavists based in in Wichita, Kansas. He was elected by a group of six lay sedevacantists, which included himself and his parents, to fill the vacancy they consider to have been caused by the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.”

    There’s a novel from the 1970s inspired by this legend, “Black Magic” by Margery Bowen, which I’ve read and enjoyed, but as to the tale itself – I’ll stick to Jack Chick tracts for historical accuracy 😉

    LikeLike

46. Aliasmoi: the passage you mention about staying single (1Cor 7) is another one of those texts that show the new creation breaking into the present age. No Jewish person in his right mind would ever have suggested that a person remain single under the ethos of creation. Marriage and children meant everything, and those who did not participate were on society’s fringes. So why in the world would Paul say it is better not to marry?

    “I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.”

    The new creation changes our views on all relationships, even those “ordained” in creation.

    LikeLike

47. Understood Wordgazer, I was expanding on Kirk’s observations. Complementarians I have met tend to be selective about what they really mean by headship. They are in favor of women under the headship of husbands or fathers but not so much about those husbands and fathers being under temporal heads. It can be popular to talk about the husband being the breadwinner without looking at how often those “breadwinners” in the Bible were under another man’s authority. Most complementarians in America seem too busy back-reading the nuclear family on to the extended family culture Paul was addressing. If I had not grown up in an important stretch of my life IN an extended family with multiple generations under one roof this wouldn’t seem so obvious to me and so opaque to a few complementarians I have talked with over the years. I have pointed out that arranged marriages are why the biblical authors didn’t address an obsession in our time, HOW to get married in a Christian way. The biblical authors also did not write about something that many Reformed complementarians are freaking out about now, the “epidemic of singleness”. If more complentarian fathers just pulled rank and did arranged marriages wouldn’t that problem be solved? 😉

    LikeLike

48. Just because God spoke to one particular set of cultures at a certain point in history, does not mean God intended to mandate the perpetuation of the norms of that time and culture as the Christian way of life throughout history.

    Kirk Cowell, I think you hit the nail on the head. The important thing is the principles of Christian relationships that were being spoken. We have to understand the culture they were being spoken to, to understand what was really being said.

    LikeLike

49. Re Ex 21:7 do complentarians discuss the necessity of picking the right bride for your sons or do they just go back to the Prov 31 as the ideal to shoot for? My reservations about applied complementarianism have generally been that they cherry pick their favorite marriage or courting customs from ancient near Eastern society while otherwise keeping whatever they like about contemporary courtship and marriage. I.e. husband is head of the home but he is the head of a wife he wanted to marry because he was in love with her and she was in love with him, not a wife designated for him by his parents and agreed upon by the other family for the mutual benefit of two family legacies.

    There can be a dangerously utilitarian ethic in either society, whether that of Pual’s time or ours, which is why the example of CHrist is the corrective. In Paul’s time that love is a corrective in one way, in our time another. I’m not sure my reservations are about complementarians so much as modern American western complementarians who don’t have the nerve to admit that most husbands were following the instructions of the head of household, the oldest competent man in the house. The “head” in a young marriage might just as often go under the headship of his father-in-law. Just look at Jacob with uncle Laban.

    LikeLike

50. I think we must recognize that the Apostles were already making huge leaps and bounds, spiritually and mentally, that were enormous for them. How much change can we expect from a group of people?

    So much of their thinking processes had already been radically revolutionized by Jesus….I’m sure they seemed like liberal progressives to those around them.

    LikeLike

51. One little comment more:

    The idea that the Apostles really would have had the nerve to come out against slavery in a different culture, requires the same hermeneutical leaps that say my wife should stay home while I bring home the bacon.

    maybe they were just afraid someone was going to get mad at them and kill them or something. 😉

    LikeLike

52. George C wrote:

    “I really don’t buy into the fact that the Apostles were just scared to break cultural taboos and that they just tolerated the alleged norms of their times when it came to this stuff. ”

    The Apostles were human, and products of their own time. It may very well have never occurred to them that slavery might come to be illegal, or that a culture might arise where women were considered equal with men. But God still spoke through the Apostles to set forth ideas about laying down power and authority, about the nobility of service, and about everyone being in the same position before God, that could result later in changes within cultures yet to come.

    LikeLike

53. imonk,

    MD’s opinion means nothing to me and I have ran into plenty of the “divinely ordained division of labor” BS in books I’ve read myself. I just don’t see where scripture gives any sort of prescription.

    I am not drinking from that well to reach my conclusions.

    My view of the complementarianism I see in scripture just acknowledges the “order” within the family, but has very little to say about any limits or commands of the specifics of duties other than the very broad love/submission commands.

    I believe the big issue is how couples are interacting with each other much more so than how they are making a living, ordering their family,ect.

    The big problem here is the same one that applies to a lot of things: trying to authoritatively connect the dots where scripture does not.

    LikeLike

54. iMonk My Hebrew prof told us it was “one who fits,” and was a further description of one flesh.

    IIRC, there was a brief article in the now-defunct magazine OMNI (a publication I greatly miss, by the way) that quoted a Hebrew scholar of sorts as saying the text was saying something to the effect of “corresponding to the front of him” – i.e., it had to do with genitalia compatibility.

    Which may explain why Adam was unable to find a suitable “fit” among the animals that were first brought to him to name and seek a partner from.

    LikeLike

55. Folks who are citing Ephesians 5:21ff in favor of a complementarian position really need to explain whether they still support the Biblical institution of slavery, and, if not, why not? (Eph 6:5-9) Paul’s theological take on master-slave relationships follows closely on the heels of his husband-wife reflections.

    What I usually hear is “culture has changed, slavery doesn’t exist anymore, and Paul wasn’t necessarily endorsing slavery anyway–but he did want people in a master-slave relationship to act in a manner consistent with the calling of Christ within the framework of that institution.” And I agree. But in our part of the world, first-century-style marriage doesn’t exist either. Yeah, we have something we call marriage that includes a man and a women in covenant together, but the cultural and legal limitations that women had in the first century are gone in modern America.

    I don’t read Paul to be mandating that husbands must always be the heads of the household (that was a given in his day) any more than he was mandating that masters be the heads of their slaves. What he is doing is responding to the common societal positions of the flock, and telling those who have power (husbands, parents, masters) that they must use that power in a way congruent with the way God uses his, and telling those who are powerless (wives, children, slaves) to embrace service willingly, just as Christ did.

    If Paul were writing in am American context with egalitarian norms encoded in law, I suspect he would start just as he did then (emphasizing mutual submission) and then telling both husbands and wives that since their culture has granted them significant autonomy and self-direction, they are to use their power for the good of the other, mutually blessing one another through holy use of the inherent privilege each has in our society.

    LikeLike

56. My Hebrew prof told us it was “one who fits,” and was a further description of one flesh.

    This whole discussion has been A+ folks.

    LikeLike

57. Imho, the translation problem with 2:18 is not so much with “kunegdo,” (although certainly it’s an odd construction) but with “ezer” translated as “helper.”

    If the text had really meant “helper” I would have expected a feminine participle “ohzeret” (humorously, the Modern Hebrew word for “housemaid”–which is the way I think many Christians read this text). I think the designation “helper” in our culture is most often something like an assistant or an apprentice, e.g. job titles like “cook’s helper”

    Instead of “helper” in Hebrew we find the noun “help,” which in most other contexts (I think–I don’t have a concordance handy) is more in the realm of “salvation” or “rescue”–usually something God does.

    According to the text, the problem of the adam is not that his laundry is piling up (Eden’s nice that way), but that he is alone–not good. I think the woman here is presented as the solution to his deep-seated problem, not as a gardening assistant.

    Just my opinion.

    LikeLike

58. Driscoll said that? Ouch.

    LikeLike

59. Curtis wrote:

    “About consensus-style marriage:
    What is a democracy of two? Peace for a while and then civil war. One is reminded of that common reason for divorce: ‘irreconcilable differences'”

    Actually, statistics show that marriages where power is shared end in divorce much less often than marriages where power is concentrated in the hands of one partner.

    Evangelical Christians have higher divorce rates than most other groups– and I believe male authority is one of the culprits. The fact is that power corrupts, and humanity is frail. Humans historically tend to succumb to the temptation to abuse power, especially when it is handed to them as a privilege of birth.

    My 21-year-marriage is a consensus-style marriage. The result has not been civil war, but happiness, friendship, and peace. My husband is my best friend. Best friends don’t need one of them to be in charge.

    LikeLike

60. I wanted to add that reading Ephesians without complementarian glasses on was equally mind-blowing. The whole book tells us what Christ did for us (his bride). “He raised us up with Him and seated us in heavenly places…” for one example.

    Husbands are admonished to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ made the church a ruler with Him. Sounds just like the ideal presented at the end of Genesis 1…

    I firmly believe it was the Fall that made man see woman as something to rule over—and that caused woman to put up with it, for the sake of maintaining relationship. That’s my reading of Genesis 3:16, anyhow, and it strongly resembles all known human history. 😦

    The LAST place we should be advocating Fall-based relationships is in the church, and yet we are one of the great hold-outs for hierarchal marital structures. Christ taught us a completely different view of hierarchy though. (He turned everything over on its head, didn’t He…). Honor is the name of the game now—honor for everyone. This is what made Christianity such a revolutionary paradigm.

    So if a man is loving his wife “as his own self,” he will honor her as his equal and bring her up to rule and reign *with* him, just as Christ did with us. I’ve yet to meet a healthy man who wants to be treated as a subordinate. 🙂

    LikeLike

61. George C:

    Mark Driscoll says that Stay at home dads should be subject to church discipline.

    The book I’m reading says you are violating a “divinely ordained division of labor” and rejecting a “divinely ordained job description” for husbands.

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

62. I am a married,woman loving, complementarian who doesn’t believe that all woman are equal to me.

    I believe some are better.

    It all depends on what qualities we are comparing.

    I am also a stay at home dad.

    Paul seems to be saying in 1 Cor. 11 that the man IS the head because of the order of creation. The context of a woman (likely meaning wife here) wearing a head covering as a sign of authority implies that there is some kind of authority involved.

    What is a “spiritual” head?

    Ephesians 5 says we should all submit to each other and THEN goes on to specify what that looks like based upon your station of life (being a wife and being a woman are not the same thing).

    The submission of the wife here has to mean SOMETHING in particular or why mention it? On some level it is a mirror of the churches relationship with Christ.

    A lot of my father’s friends are cops and abusive jerks. No one wants to rid us of one just because of the other.

    There are a lot of abusive husband and their are a lot of abusive wives. That doesn’t negate roles though.

    I really don’t buy into the fact that the Apostles were just scared to break cultural taboos and that they just tolerated the alleged norms of their times when it came to this stuff.

    They may have made concessions to the Jews in their eating habits and such so that they could gain a hearing, but they also didn’t pretend that they were legitimate requirements (Romans 14?) under the New Covenant.

    I think the practical outworking of husband and wife relations have a lot of latitude, but it seems to me that arguing that there are no relational roles just forces me to just neuter a bunch of texts.

    LikeLike

63. Really appreciate this post, Michael.

    I am someone who bought into complementarianism, hook, line, and sinker. I spent the next 11 years in a very abusive relationship. My husband looked great on the outside, but behind closed doors, there was a LOT of control.

    I did not have the right to choose how many children I would have, whether or not I would have a garden, whether or not we would have pets, whether or not I could keep my car or not, whether or not I would work, whether or not I could be involved in outside-the-house activities, whether or not I could go to bed at night without first cleaning the kitchen spotless, whether or not I was allowed to wear certain kinds of clothes, whether or not I could read certain books…

    If my husband had told me to go commit adultery, for example, I would have *known* that was a sin. But since I’d been taught by CBMW and their kind that I had to submit in all things except to sin, I…submitted. I tried to do it joyfully, cheerfully. I would say that I succeeded, so much so that I wasn’t even aware of how deeply I was being destroyed by living under this level of control (much like victims of cults). I learned, thanks to the teachings of CMBW and others, that I couldn’t trust my own thoughts anyway—that I had an innate rebellion in me that would always want to defy my husband, and so the fact that I felt dishonored or hurt was probably due to my female rebellion, not anything real. I learned that, as a woman, I really can’t trust my own thoughts, reactions, or decision-making abilities.

    My smile kept everything under wraps until one day I just couldn’t do it anymore and my whole body and mind crashed…I was forced to deal with reality when my body just stopped working. (I later found out that developing an illness/auto-immune disorder is fairly typical for a woman in a very abusive setting–her body can only handle so much strain).

    The whole time this was happening, my husband was a minister and very much respected (and should have been—he did a fantastic job at the church). In other words, no one looking on ever would have guessed.

    It was almost four years ago today that I first discovered the Christian egalitarian position. It was through digging in Scripture that my life was saved, particularly Genesis 1-3. When I read it WITHOUT the complementarian glasses on, it was as if I was reading a completely different text. It blew my mind. Things like “helpmate” that I’d always assumed meant “subordinate assistant,” turned out to mean nothing of the sort. How could I have missed the end of Genesis 1, where God shows us man and woman ruling *together?*

    I could go on and on, but I will say that leaving complementarianism was the best thing I ever did for myself and for my family and, most importantly, for my relationship with my God.

    My husband was furious, FURIOUS at losing his power over me. I remember, waaay back at the beginning of my paradigm shift, when I first read, “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” and cried all the way through it. It’s mainly about abusive churches, but to me, it was all about my own marriage. My husband didn’t use his fists to keep my under his control—he used God.

    LikeLike

64. Here are 10 reasons why men should not be pastors 🙂

    This is a satirical piece on why men should not be pastors from a Swedish Christian Blog. Here is what it says:

    10. A man’s place is in the army.

    9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

    8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.

    7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

    6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

    5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

    4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

    3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

    2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

    1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

    LikeLike

65. Being somewhat horrified, I am reluctant to comment, but must. I see “complementarianism” as nothing more than a misogynistic attempt by a few men to power grab in their own homes.

    This is 2009. Women are not property or chattel. They are intellectually men’s equals (and in some specific relationships I can think of, men’s superiors).

    Here’s a thought: why can’t everyone, regardless of gender, just do what they’re good at? For instance, in my 27-year Christ-centered (always the goal, at least, although surely applied imperfectly) marriage to a fine Christian man who I still think is the total bomb, that’s how we have always divided roles. I have a business degree and interest in financial matters, so I handle all of that. My husband is very gifted in other areas (he has several education degrees) and loves to grocery shop and cook. I could go on and on but why does it have to be so much more complicated than this? As far as items that nobody wants to do, we share them. As in: “your turn”. As far as the really big decisions, we decided and agreed long ago on principals for living, so those decisions are guided by those principals.

    For example, we agreed on aiming for a non-materialistic lifestyle, so either of us suggesting the purchase of a fancy or even new car is not going to happen.

    I can honestly say that we have always been able to work through anything with enough discussion, thought, and prayer. So maybe that’s why I’ve never had the “I’m the head, that’s why” card played on me. We practice mutual submission, probably imperfectly, but it works.

    My husband, over the years, has come home from various church men’s groups in disgust over this issue. He seems very leery of men who are not focused on loving their wives enough and secure enough to live and think in an egalitarian way. Thankfully, most of the married men we know in church are evolved enough that this is rarely an issue any more in our circles.

    LikeLike

66. Treebeard,

    I’ve had the same experience. If I could go back in time, I’d beat some sense into myself with a baseball bat….

    LikeLike

67. Two things that have me thinking.

    One: the constant entanglement of what we’re calling “complementarian” ideas with rigid sex-role divisions and assumptions about sex differences in nature. These are either not borne out, or are only partially borne out, by research studies. There are trends that seem clear but in general we’re more alike than we are different.

    And that’s just talking about people who are “gender typical”, not transgendered, homosexual, intersexed or just not particularly good at performances of the gender they’ve been assigned to (I realise some Christian authors and pastors consider any resistance to gender stereotypes as a dire sin, a sign of social decay, and the cause of many societal ills, though they seldom are challenged to prove it nor do they try to do so, scientifically).

    Example: An ultra-marathon. The first few in will be men, but soon women will start to arrive. These very fit front-running women have out-run numerous men who are also fit and good runners. A similar pattern of trend and overlap emerges for just about any human quality or attribute you could name. My conclusion: if we’re going to hoist our flag to complementarity, we’d best do so without trying to invoke Nature because she’ll dig a trap for our philosophy.

    Two: Those “authority” comments of St Paul’s regarding sex. Wow. It’s the first time I’ve really thought about that verse, other than as an example of surprising even handedness. My half-baked conclusion:

    Either St Paul was a man who knew dangerously b-all about sex and relationships and yet felt able to pronounce, like the Popes of modern times; or perhaps couples in those days had horrible, ignorant and coercive sex; or (gasp) maybe what he meant by “authority” had little to do with the meanings we usually associate with the word.

    I’m sure I don’t need to go into detail!! But if we were always forced to set the concept of “authority” in marriage against a backdrop of pillow talk, it might help to avoid some of the most damaging and ridiculous distortions.

    LikeLike

68. Martha…Catherine of Sienna must have been quite a force to reckon with! I went to the page you gave at http://www.domcentral.org/trad/stcather.htm and like the part that says, “Pope John Paul II recently honored her ‘impassioned liveliness’ and ‘freedom of initiative,’ when he marked the 25th anniversary of her being named one of the FIRST women Doctors of the Church.” Freedom of initiative is something I think we need more of in the Catholic Church and I hope the Church does not stymy initiatives that are propelled by the love of God and love of fellow human beings.

    LikeLike

69. If my sole reason for existing is to be a helper to some man, why does Paul say I’ll be better off if I don’t marry?

    LikeLike

70. About Catholic female ordination:
    In Catholicism, the question of female ordination is ontological: “Can a woman be a priest?” Whereas in Evangelicalism, it is a purely moral question: “Should a woman be a pastor?” There is little room for ecumenical dialog on this topic.

    About the equality of the sexes:
    How do we square the assertion “Women and men are equal” with St.Peter’s exhortation to husbands (plus 2000 years of Christian rhetoric) to care for their wives as “the weaker vessel”. Historically, the notion of women being mentally and physically weaker than men is the basis for complementarianism, is it not? One finds it in Augustine, Aquinas, the Reformers, the Puritans, etc… For those who accept equality, how do you interpret St.Peter’s word “weaker”?

    About ruling over each other:
    I liken it more to ballroom dancing. Does the male dancer dominate his partner? Not at all. Is the female passive? To the contrary! But the male does set the pace and take the initiative, with the turns and dips.

    About consensus-style marriage:
    What is a democracy of two? Peace for a while and then civil war. One is reminded of that common reason for divorce: “irreconcilable differences”

    LikeLike

71. Maybe a more concrete example would make some sense. In my marriage we began with my wife as the chief breadwinner with the well paying prestige job while I struggled to get established. Once I could feed us both and we were graced with children my wife gave up her career to stay at home. She made the choice on her own, though not immediately as she had originally intended to go back to work. We left open the question of her working and adjusted on the fly. We moved cross country to a place where we could afford to live this way (Memphis). What we had planned and what happened were worlds apart. Over the course of time we deferred decisions or changed them as circumstances changed. I expect things might change, my wife’s choice again, again in a few years once both boys are in school full time. What was interesting was that we naturally gravitated to our current roles when the time was right. There are times when my wife would prefer adult interaction and there are days I’d rather be at home changing diapers than at meetings at work.

    Likwewise the Church must adjust to the circumstances at hand, within certain constraints. When priests and religious were plentiful Sisters ran the schools and only priests gave out communion. Today especially in large Churches with few priests many traditionally priestly tasks are delegated to Deacons and layfolk to lighten the burden on Father. Schools are run by laymen and only the sacraments are reserved by the priest. This last part is necessary because by Canon law and dogma, only a ordained priest can perform a valid Mass.

    That wine and wafers comment above is alien to the Catholic Church, although doubtless some Catholic might say something similar. If the Eucharist was merely bread and wine then anyone could do it and priestly ordination would be much less important. In fact if that were true then, to my mind, there would be little reason to be Catholic at all.

    LikeLike

72. I think there’s a crucial love and responsibility (JP II) subtext missing from the discussion. Complimentarianism only works in the context of authentic respect, humility and the understanding that the clerical roles in the Church are roles of service and responsibility, not of power and privilege.

    In a marriage power and privilege is corrosive. Ideally both partners are sacrificing selfish desires for the benefits of a stable foundation for children. Sacrifice is mutual, continuous and we become united in a shared goal that is larger than our own concerns. This submission is partially to each other but crucially to the shared goal of family and ultimately to the pursuit of God. You’ve probably heard of the concept behind “Three to get married”, with God as the third. In this context the division of labor is a natural consequence of secondary importance to both partners seeking the same larger end.

    Likewise the Church is a community with the shared goal of closer communion with God and neighbor. If that belief is truly shared, the mode by which an individual contributes becomes less important as the goals of the community and ultimately those of God becomes primary. Each diverse role requires distinct charisms and has distinct levels of responsibility. Spiritual ambition or envy spoils the mix and defeats the shared goal and purpose of the Church. This is like the sons of Zebedee asking to be on the right and left of Christ in the Kingdom. The role God has chosen for each of us can be very different from what we imagine for ourselves. What may look like privilege to us (the priestly role, for example) is undoubtedly very burdensome while what we might disdain (the stay at home parent role) doubtless has benefits. What is needed is careful discernment for each person of their own vocation and the humility to accept that their role may be modest in the eyes of the world.

    The entire egalitarian vs complimentarian frame seems to me to be a political framework of what is actually spiritual.

    LikeLike

73. To Ed on his comment on 30 Apr 2009 at 8:59 am: I sympathize greatly with what you have written. When all this stuff starts to boggle my mind, here is what I do and I know there will be folks who will think or say, “Well, THAT isn’t biblical either.” But I try to see the issue through the lens of love. I know that sounds simplistic, but Jesus was always bringing his listeners back to the fact that what he was doing were acts of love, not acts under the law. So if someone needed help and it involved some effort on the Sabbath, he helped the person. If sinners needed him to show that he loved him and if he could do that by being present to them and enjoying them, he did that. If talking to a Samaritan woman would help that woman and her community, Jesus did that.

    I do think it is sad that there have been so many highly spiritual women whose names we don’t know nearly as well as guys like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Luther and more. Take a look at this book (which I have not read):
    http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR1147.aspx
    Scroll down to see lots of Catholic woman writers listed who get discussed in that book.

    I think there is a current that runs through the Christian “hierarchy” that does not put as much importance on what women have to say as to what men have to say and I think they use things written in the Bible to “excuse” that. (In GENERAL! I know that there are some wonderful exceptions.)

    NOTE: while looking around the internet for something about female Cathlic writers, I came across http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/cfo/pdf/Catholic_Case_for_Obama_booklet.pdf I am going to read that, because I voted for Obama and I keep running into Catholic things that say basically that you can’t be a Catholic (and sometimes I see things that say you can’t be a Christian) and support Obama.

    LikeLike

74. Imonk, you said “that inference cannot be on the same level as direct statement”

    I believe complementarianism is a second order reality.

    A first order reality is where there can be no argument, it is absolute truth. You either believe Christ died and was resurrected to give us the gift of eternal life or you do not. Christians cannot argue that point.

    But where the Bible speaks and is not an absolute, it becomes a second order reality. We need to agree to disagree on these debatable points. This is why we have 30,000 different denominations splitting as the loss of unity in Christ fizzles. I believe people will fall somewhere along the spectrum of extreme complementarianism to extreme egalitarianism. God uses different relationships for His Will not ours. So the “division of labor” is up to interpretation. Let the Holy Spirit guide you in your decisions in choosing what works best for Him, and let us not say one way is right or wrong. As soon as we say that, we are playing God.

    LikeLike

75. It is verifiable that some who hold to complimentarianism consider women to be “less” then men. Those who do are a fringe element – an extreme example – but they do exist.

    One example of such a extreme fringe group of complimentarianism would be Vision Forum, who espouse that women are not to vote, drive a car, ever work outside of the home, and have even gone so far as to not allow females to partake of communion unless her husband or father allows her to do so.

    They base this last practice on the concept of males being given “spiritual headship.”

    I personally believe we all – male and female – have one spiritual head – His name is Jesus.

    LikeLike

76. Dear Scott,

    You said, “he says humanity fell through the sin of the first Adam. Eve actually took the first bite of that fruit. But Paul gives blame to Adam for sin, and I think this is due to him having headship (over his family, Eve at the time) and all humanity.”

    Paul actually says the blame was given to Adam because he ate not being deceived – he ate willing, with full knowledge of what he was doing.

    Eve ate deceived – Adam ate willing and with full knowledge.

    The blame for sin being given to Adam has nothing to do with “headship” – instead it shows sin came into the earth by WILLING disobedience.

    LikeLike

77. Hey, Ed. I’m not so sure it was God who muddied the Christianity waters. But, I agree they can be very difficult to wade through.

    LikeLike

78. Joannie D said:

    Anyone looking at me and my life, though, would probably not feel I am living like an egalitarian, but egalitarian is what I am…not complementarion.

    Yes!

    The same feeling here! Most of my daily activities are very much the in role of nurturer/caretaker. I chose this life and do the things I do out of love for my family and the desire to serve them….not because I have a uterus.(hopefully that’s not too crass)

    That is what I think Ephesians is about.

    No matter how nicely worded the complementarian position may be…once it’s boiled down…it most definitely means that a woman is lesser than a man on some level.

    I just can’t see God thinking I am unfit for certain things simply because of my biology.

    LikeLike

79. I think it is strange to talk about personal relationships in terms of who rules over whom. I could be wrong, but I believe it was Scot McKnight who said in his book “The Blue Parakeet” that when a man uses the term “submission” to talk about how his wife should relate to him, there are deeper issues to worry about (loosely paraphrased). I know that in my marriage, my husband and I never use the terms “submit” or “submission.” Disagreements are worked out by arriving at a consensus, and we go from there. In our friendships with other people, we don’t talk about submission either, one friend submitting to another on an issue, for example. It would be ludicrous, quite frankly, and indicative of an unhealthy relationship. Are there times when we, out of love, allow the other person to have “their way” on a matter? Sure, but this is not about one partner “ruling over” the other. As foreign as that concept is in friendship, it should be even more repugnant in a loving, healthy marriage.

    LikeLike

80. “Wout, no complementarian with a brain would EVER say that a woman is “less” than a man.”

    Laura… really?

    Think about what you’re saying here.

    As far as I can tell, modern ‘complimentarianism’ is the exegetical heritor of the Christian androcentrist’s fear-reaction to the women’s suffrage / feminist movements of the last 100+ years – go back and read some stuff about the first women’s rights folks and the incredible denouncements they received from so many strident Protestant corners. It should be clear to everybody that complimentarianism, as an idea at least, has a pretty ragged background, as I’ve found out.

    The old Biblically-couched rhetoric is basically the same as I’ve seen from modern complimentarians – discouraging them from working outside the home, seeking education, addressing public forums, etc.

    Its an ideology. No brains required.

    And we can parse what “less” means as finely as you’d like (as many complimentarian women do), but doing so at leisure one of the luxuries of a post-feminist age..

    LikeLike

81. This Christianity stuff is just getting way too complicated for me.

    Apparently:

    If I don’t like something the bible says, I can resort to in-depth linguistic and cultural gymnastics until I get enough wiggle room to support my disagreement.

    If I do like something the bible says, I can carry it around in my argument holster and pull it out as often as I like and shoot my opponent with it.

    If my beliefs run counter to the current cultural norms, I am going to be labeled as racist, misogynist, or at the least inflexible and out of touch.

    If my beliefs take into account cultural norms and an expanded understanding, I am going to be labeled as spineless, guilty of apostasy, and incapable of making a stand.

    If I argue from the perspective of two thousand years of tradition and the wisdom of church leaders that established and built that tradition, I am being un-biblical.

    If I use scripture as my source, I am being naive and blind to two thousand years of tradition and silly to believe that any given scripture is a) to be taken at face value, b) properly translated from the original, c) able to stand alone or, d) applicable to today vs. a historical record.

    I see all of this and more in the comments and I come away with no clearer answer than I had before and frankly, I give up. Why did God make this stuff so complicated?

    LikeLike

82. Wow, what a great thread. iMonk, not only are your posts wonderful, but you have the best commenters on the web.

    My marriage was very damaged from the beginning because of my “Christian” attitude. Why isn’t my wife ironing for me? Do I have to ask her twice? Why is she resisting the giving of hospitality? Why is she blaming me for the apartment being messy? Etc. I was the “head” of the house.

    The book that most helped me get over this weird authority-submission fetish was “The Power of a Praying Husband,” by Stormie Omartian. Reading that book, and praying those prayers, made me appreciate my wife as a woman, a human being, and a fellow believer. I’ve spent a lot of time repenting since. I do believe that the husband bears a particular responsibility for the family, including a priestly service, bearing his wife and children in prayer. But using the Bible to justify macho crap, and even neglect and abuse, is very sick.

    LikeLike

83. Martha, your “Brother Billy-Bob’s Free Grace Divine Glory First Church of the Disciples of Christ the All-Victorious” is very cute!

    My local Catholic priest told us something a few weeks ago. He said there is nothing that would prevent women from being made Cardinals within the church. He said Cardinals do not need to be priests. I bet we won’t see that happening any time soon, but wouldn’t it be great! There WAS a female Pope at one time, though: Pope Joan! I know some say it wasn’t so, but from bits and pieces I have read, I believe it. There is a book out now about it and a movie being made.

    Peace to all!

    LikeLike

84. A lot of this seems to be culturally conditioned as well.
    Our denomination commissions (our word for ordination) women with the same rank as men.
    Many single women are in positions of authority over the local church in which they serve, including preaching, teaching, etc. We have had two women as the global leaders of our denomination. Our world leaders serve for about 4-5 years. (Although, it must be said that both women have been single. It is highly unlikely we have would have a married female General.)
    In some places our church folk like a visit from the female officer but consider a visit by the husband as one from the ‘real officer.”
    It’s funny really,(although not to our sisters I bet) and hopefully that attitude is passing away.
    In many marriages I have seen, couples are gifted in different ways. Sometimes the husband is a better preacher, manager, conflict resolver, counselor, sometimes the wife is. In our denomination, both partners have the freedom to operate fully within their giftedness, and define their own roles most of the time.
    So, we are not complementarians, believing that males and females are equal in all respects. We haven’t got a perfect record in that regard, and culturally, we are just as affected by these issues as anyone else. Including myself. But we are committed to gender equality. And we struggle to live that commitment out in our ecclesiastical tradition with as little hypocrisy as possible.

    LikeLike

85. I guess I find myself somewhere in between the two views of complementarianism and egalitarianism. (Nope, I won’t pull the I-go-by-what-the-Bible-says card.) I just find myself open to either. But, no doubt, this is a difficult topic to discuss.

    I do believe that women can and should be released into any gifting and ministry role, as long as they are called into such, for I don’t believe the Bible ever distinguishes certain gifts and ministry roles as only for the male gender. But, at the same time, I tend to see the Scripture giving a headship role (in the family, and possibly in the church) to men, yet I still recognise that men and women are to function as a team in marriage. But I find it possible to conclude the headship role of men through considering Paul’s words in places like Romans 5. It wasn’t necessarily his point, but interestingly enough, he says humanity fell through the sin of the first Adam. Eve actually took the first bite of that fruit. But Paul gives blame to Adam for sin, and I think this is due to him having headship (over his family, Eve at the time) and all humanity.

    Anyways, there is more to discuss, but you don’t want to hear more from me. Though, as a side note, I believe passages like 1 Tim 2:8-15 and 1 Cor 14:33-35 are, many times, misunderstood by more traditional complementarians. 🙂

    Thanks Michael.

    LikeLike

86. If you’ve ever read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke (not the guy from Lost) the first treatise objects to the then-common belief of the divine right of kings. The argument for that right is that Adam’s authority as father over his children, and grandchildren, and so forth, extended to his firstborn sons, and their firstborn sons, and subsequently to kings, who are the firstborn of us all.

    Yeah, it’s a stretch. But the kings loved it. Locke, of course, pointed out that this was all illogical crap, with no valid scriptural basis. It was only constructed to defend an indefensible common practice.

    Sound similar?

    LikeLike

87. So I used to be a complementarian. And then I stopped reading only 1 Tim 2, and started reading the rest of scripture.

    Seriously, I don’t think complementarians realize how controlled they are by that one text. You can look at the whole book on PDF here http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/biblicalfoundations.pdf

    And do a little search for the number of times 1 Tim 2 is cited in the book. It’s something like 130 times for a 300 page book. That’s almost one citation of that one text for every 2 pages. No other textual citation comes close.

    Does that strike anyone as odd?

    Well, let me put it this way: Have you ever read a 300 page book on Salvation that references 1 Tim 2:15 one hundred and thirty times? Would you start explaining what salvation is by starting and ending with 1 Tim 2:15?

    So why do complementarians begin and end their discussions about gender roles with 1 Tim 2:11-14?

    LikeLike

88. What about a “wife” married to an alcoholic Man ? Should HE be “over” her ?

    What about widows or unmarried gals ? Spinsters ?

    What about Christ ?

    LikeLike

89. “heck, if Cwirla can do it…! ;)).”

    I just make it look easy.

    LikeLike

90. Actually, to swerve off topic for a moment, the Pew survey is interesting; it seems to be saying that when Catholics leave or switch, it’s mainly for reasons to do with theology (anything from “I was a Catholic for sixty years but I never heard the Gospel preached before I joined Brother Billy-Bob’s Free Grace Divine Glory First Church of the Disciples of Christ the All-Victorious” to “I wanted to be a bishop but that mean ol’ Pope said girls couldn’t do that, so I got ordained in a synagogue and set up my own church!”) but when Protestants (and sorry for lumping all you guys in together as a job lot like that) leave or switch, it’s more likely to be for life circumstances, e.g. “When I moved for my job, there wasn’t a church of my denomnination in my new town so I went to the Methodists/Quakers/Unitarians” or “I just liked the music/small groups/coffee better in church B rather than church D”.

    The GetReligion blog has a nice post summarising the difficulties of doing such surveys:

    http://www.getreligion.org/?p=11368

    Oh, by the way: the wannabe female bishops getting ordained in a synagogue and setting up their own church bit? Of course that’s a joke – those women who did that became priests, not bishops!

    LikeLike

91. “Then again, the survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life revealed that approximately four out of ten Catholics who have left the church left because of Catholicism’s treatment of women.”

    Back her up there, Patsy: it was my understanding that those who left was because “Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most religions” and “Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in the process of religious change. Many people who leave the Catholic Church do so for religious reasons; two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated say they left the Catholic faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, as do half of former Catholics who are now Protestant. Fewer than three-in-ten former Catholics, however, say the clergy sexual abuse scandal factored into their decision to leave Catholicism.”

    It’s my understanding from this that the “four in ten” figure refers to all (Protestant and Catholic) who give up the faith they were raised in, not Catholics alone. I don’t see anything there that specifically mentions “Catholicism’s treatment of women” as THE main, A main, or even a major, reason for leaving Catholicism – “stopped believing in its teachings” could apply to everything from the understanding of the atonement up to views on the Papacy, the sacraments, or the communion of saints.

    I also find it ironic (as I said) that on the feast of St. Catherine of Sienna, Doctor of the Church, Patron of Europe, we’re being lectured on our treatment of women – especially when we’re also hit over the head for the TOO-HIGH place we give to Mary.

    LikeLike

92. Another issue is that the only place where Paul used the actual word “authority” between husbands and wives was in a place where he spoke of the wife having authority over the husband’s body, and the husband having equal authority over the wife’s body, when it came to marital relations.

    The word “head” in Eph. 5 may not mean “source,” but it is extremely doubtful it meant “authority” either. I believe the way the original audience would have understood it is as a unity metaphor (head and body being one) with the head being the “prominent one” or “the one on top” — as was a given in that culture. But Jesus was always telling those who were prominent in the culture to step down, to take the lower place. Whether the instructions in Eph. 5 were intended to turn the assumptions of that culture into God’s timeless commandments, is something I take issue with– particularly when we realize the passage also mentioned slaves and masters.

    In one place, Paul told wives to stay home and be submissive to their husbands so as not to “hinder the gospel.” But today, I find that one of the biggest hindrances to the gospel is when Christians insist women have to stay home and be under their husbands’ authority.

    “Submission” did not always imply “submission to authority” anyway. People just tend to read it that way.

    LikeLike

93. Bror Erickson,

    You brought up 1 Corinthians 7:12-13 and how I square that with my position as a complementarian. Likewise, you asked me, “Is the husband supposed to force his wife to believe as he does? Life happens. One day you might be married to a believer that believes as you do. The next day you may wake up to find that is no longer true.”

    I don’t think that was Paul’s intention at all when he wrote that. He was addressing a situation that was not the ideal/intended situation. What is the ideal situation is that when we marry, it would be another believer. Paul, however, was addressing a situation that was becoming a common thing (and still is today). Two people who were not believers that were married and then one of them became a Christian. This began to bring out the question, do I divorce this person so that I am not “unequally yoked?”

    Paul’s answer was simply, no you don’t divorce them; you live your life in a way that might win them to salvation. So no I don’t believe the husband, nor the wife, is supposed to “force” the other to believe as they do.

    Pastor M,
    You said you didn’t see were iM and I were coming from with our interpretation of Genesis 3. Could you elaborate a little more? Because I think iMonk and I have different interpretations of Genesis 3.

    LikeLike

94. Wout, no complementarian with a brain would EVER say that a woman is “less” than a man. Different, yes. Less, never. In fact, this complementarian would say you were being true to your calling as a husband to serve your wife in such a beautiful way toward the end of her life.

    Michael, we’re getting into Godwin’s law territory, but I wanted to throw my two cents in. I remember listening to a fairly ranty message about men’s and women’s roles by a CBMW guy, and I had a prof at Southern who had a question on the final about how to encourage a slacker stay-at-home-dad to get out and provide for his family. But apart from that, the characterization you give of “complementarianism” is pretty foreign to me. Call me simple-minded but I always thought it just meant that:

    1. God created men and women to be equal in value but different in roles (like women can, y’know, give birth and stuff and men can pee standing up). Thus wives are (like Eve) a “helper suitable” to their husbands.
    2. Men are designed by God to be leaders of their home and in the church.
    3. Women are designed by God to be nurturers of their families and to serve and lead in the church in any capacity except that of pastoral ministry.

    I didn’t think that the word “complementarian” necessarily implied thinking a stay-at-home-dad was in sin, or that it was always wrong for a mother to work outside the home or whatever, and I don’t think you’re fairly portraying the beliefs of the average complementarian.

    Oh… can’t resist one more thing: Justin, I feel the same way about Eph 5:21. Greek grammar is a powerful thing.

    “21 Submit yourselves to one another as unto the Lord: 22 Wives to husbands…”

    LikeLike

95. I just find it strange that a lot of this was really not an issue until the recent past. I know a lot of folks will have a 100 ways to object and refute this statement, they’ll drag out the bones of MLK Jr, civil rights, women’s suffrage, 1950’s house wives on nerve pills etc.

    But can we really look at the family, the health of the church, the health of our culture and not say that things were better in our world when the family was more traditional, when roles were more defined and static?

    LikeLike

96. I must confess that on a pastoral level I have never really understood the level of emotion, even hysteria, that is raised by this issue. In the churches where I have served, I have always seen my sisters and brothers as full partners in ministry and have never placed emphasis on specific “roles” as if they were laid out in Scripture like an instructional manual.

    On the hermeneutical level, I haven’t heard too many speak about the ESCHATOLOGICAL aspects of this issue. What is the relationship between the ethos of “creation” ordinances (dramatically affected by the fall) and the ethos of the “new creation” inaugurated by Jesus and the coming of the Spirit?

    In creation, family is the primary unit. With the dawning of the kingdom, Jesus pointed to a new family that transcends biological categories (Mark 4.31-35). And in the fullness of the new creation, there will be no marrying or giving in marriage (Matt 22.23-33). Creation “family” categories apparently won’t apply anymore in the new heavens and new earth.

    The same is true with “ministry” categories in the church. Peter’s Pentecost sermon says plainly that old categories of distinguishing who does what in proclaiming God’s Word (age, class, status, gender) will be undergoing dramatic transformation because of the coming of the Spirit (Acts 2.17-21).

    Our interpretive and application “problems” come to some extent from the fact that the NT church lives today in BOTH realities—the “now” and the “not yet.” Still living in this creation, with all of its relationships and institutions, we have also tasted of the age to come and are to show forth the newness of the Spirit and new creation, so that our lives in the community of faith give present glimpses of future glories.

    Reformed folks and others of more complementarian persuasions tend to emphasize the “creation” order, while Pentecostals and others who allow more freedom in ministry participation emphasize the newness brought by the Spirit.

    Is it possible to determine a proper balance of perspectives?

    LikeLike

97. thanks for “going there.” as a recovering complimentarian, it’s nice to read some of your thoughts on all of this…

    happy birthday to me.

    LikeLike

98. “I am perfectly capable of performing the duties of a pastor. Any tool can write a half-decent sermon and hand out wafers and wine with minimal mess. It’s not that difficult (heck, if Cwirla can do it…! ;)).”

    Hey!!! How did I get involved in this?

    LikeLike

99. I hadn’t even heard of complementarianism until recently. I see it is old fashioned male supremacy and misogyny. My late wife and I always discussed anything to do with our marriage, vacations, purchases etc etc. We shared our marriage and love. She was always the cook as she loved cooking, was excellent at it and was very artistic. When she fell ill, I had to cook, clean, and take care of her until she died. In our very good marriage, if I had been the one to fall ill and subsequently die, she would have done everything for me. I very strongly feel that male supremists that call themselves complementarian would probably find islam a better fit. In Christ there is no male or female. Thank God.

    Imonk, I personally don’t care whether you ever give the title of that book as I would never read such stuff. If I sound angry, I am as I love her still and would never think she was and is less than me. Actually as she is with the Lord, she is far better than me now.

    LikeLike

100. Evangelicals recognize God calling women to all kinds of ministry. The only question is pastoral ministry. Many pentecostal/charismatics and evangelicals in the mainlines have no issue with women in pastoral ministry.

     I realize that the RCC also recognizes and encourages the gifts of women.

     I’d think there’s not a huge difference, though it varies depending on local factors.

     LikeLike

101. Jon wrote on 29 Apr 2009 at 7:55 pm, “I think we need to stop and ask if the Bible was written with the intention of giving clear answers to all issues.” And he also wrote, “I propose one of the biggest dangers is the divisions in Christ’s church that have been created by holding too tightly to these non-essential positions. I think Complementarianism is one of these non-essential discussions. I’m not sure if this was a central theme in scripture. It is not worth creating divisions over. What if we seek the Holy Spirit who dwells in us to guide each of us on this one?”

     You are a man after my own heart, Jon. I love many of the writings within the Bible, especially the Gospels and the words of Jesus. I find some great poetic thoughts within Psalms. I love the book of Job. BUT…the truth is that men sat down and wrote the books found within the Bible. Men who were still learning who God was and how they relate to God. As we read the books, we see how men came to understand God in more “complete” ways.

     And yes, I believe the men who decided which books made up the Bible were led by the power of the Holy Spirit. God can speak to us through these books. But, it is how we now understand, live, love in the Holy Spirit that helps us to understand what is written in those books. I believe that Jesus showed us what God wants from women. He wants them to know and love him and bring that knowledge and love to the world. If they are good teachers, they should teach. If they are good preachers, they should preach. And on it goes. But I will stop now.

     Anyone looking at me and my life, though, would probably not feel I am living like an egalitarian, but egalitarian is what I am…not complementarian.

     iMonk, I don’t know if you want to get into this or not, but do you see the Catholic Church giving more or less options to women than the evangelical churches?

     And dac, I love your, “I am the head of our household…and my wife is the neck, which moves the head anyway it wants…”

     Cute!

     LikeLike

102. http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=18

     the Hebrew expression כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (kÿnegdo) literally means “according to the opposite of him.” Translations such as “suitable [for]” (NASB, NIV), “matching,” “corresponding to” all capture the idea. (Translations that render the phrase simply “partner” [cf. NEB, NRSV], while not totally inaccurate, do not reflect the nuance of correspondence and/or suitability.) The man’s form and nature are matched by the woman’s as she reflects him and complements him. Together they correspond. In short, this prepositional phrase indicates that she has everything that God had invested in him.

     LikeLike

103. [Mod edit] The ESV translation of 2:18 as “a helper fit…” is not particularly “helpful” in this issue either.

     LikeLike

104. please excuse my split infinitive in the above post!

     one more thing:
     “>The teaching in scripture is strictly for women to read and accept…

     This differs from Islam how?”

     Islam? What? I don’t understand. Isn’t the teaching in scripture for men AND women to read and accept?

     LikeLike

105. After reading the classic text Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood put out under the auspices of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, I wrote to them to ask how they were ensuring that businesses across the country hired men over women and paid men more than women so that that men were always guaranteed to be employed and be the breadwinners (especially at a time when businesses were forsaking qualified males because females were cheaper to employ and more easily managed).

     They told me they weren’t doing that at all.

     Then I asked how they were working with Christian men to help them find good jobs that ensured that they would always be the breadwinners in their households.

     They told me they weren’t doing that at all.

     Then I asked why they were requiring such things from men, things cornerstone to their list of rules, yet were not in any way helping those men who really desired to be the breadwinners but were finding the going difficult or nearly impossible given cultural and business world changes.

     When they danced around that question and failed to answer it at all, I asked why they were hanging millstones around the necks of men who had suffered career defeats that now meant they made less than their wives.

     At this they stopped replying to my letters.

     And this is the problem. The world of employment today in no way resembles the world of Palestine AD 1. But still, somehow, Christians have to navigate today’s work world.

     I know MANY families where the wife’s career took off and her income outstripped her husband’s, often by significant multiples. Are such men damned?

     When I was starting up my business, I caught enormous amounts of flak from complementarians because my wife worked outside the home in a lucrative job, I was home with the kid, and I was slowly building my business while making very little money. “Reviled” is too kind a word for the way some of those folks made me feel.

     Now I am the breadwinner again after the five or so years it takes for any small business to become profitable.

     Needless to say, I won’t be waiting for any apologies from my accusers because none will be forthcoming.

     All the complementarian preachers and pastors have good ideals about the ways things should be, but they are abominable at making those ideals work within the job world most normal people face today. I find it telling that most of them have always been preachers and pastors, rarely having any knowledge of what it’s like to work a 50-hour-a-week job in the real world. When they hold out the ideals but offer no practical ways of making them work, they are only browbeating those who can’t make the ideals fit their personal experience, no matter how hard they try.

     I find that un-Christian, frankly.

     LikeLike

106. It’s a bit intimidating commenting on this blog, but I thought I’d give it a whirl as this topic has been on my mind and has come up in various conversations lately. I am not here to dictate what anyone else should or shouldn’t do or even to say that scripture is silent in one place and vocal in another. It does seem to speak to these issues in my opinion, but it seems to be silent enough for a substantial debate to ensue also….So think of these as just some thoughts to chew on and not as dogma that I’m trying to impose:

     Speaking solely on this issue of who is physically present with the child the most…

     I do think that modern conveniences like breast pumps make it possible for women to be away from the child for lengthy hours. Do what you will with that statement, but I like to try to take myself away from all the culture norms for a moment and see if some of my viewpoints would function without them. As far as I know, a man can be away from the child for a few hours, but a woman who is the milk supply is needed more frequently. If she chooses to pump or to give formula, she must rely on a modern convenience and depart from the basic equipment if you know what I mean. Sometimes formula or pumping is medically necessary, but that is not the point I am trying to make. Sorry to be so practical about the matter and not more philosophical.

     Also, I do reject ideas about labor being divided up this or that way as a RULE. My husband cares about the dishes in the sink more than I do, so if he sees some sitting there, he puts them away whereas I may let them sit there longer. This doesn’t mean I don’t do dishes, but he does them plenty. I care for the clothes to be folded and put away quickly. He doesn’t. He changes diapers, he plays with the baby, he does plenty. We both want significant involvement in our child’s life, although I am the one who is choosing not to have a boss or a vocation in addition to the vocation of being a mother…and part of that was naturally imposed upon me because I chose not to opt for the breast pumps or the formula or whatever else would give me the ability to be away for that long.

     I am little weary also of feeling the need to defend the work of a mom as actual work. Even Oprah (who has plenty of crap to say along with some truth, too) is now touting the mom and helping to squelch phrases like “just a mom.” Working to care for in infant is some of the hardest work I’ve had to do. I have been told before regarding being a “stay-at-home” mom: “Well, I just can’t do that. I can’t just stay home.” Why must be add the word “just”? I don’t think of myself as “just at home, la dee da.” And I think it is a threat to the idea of choice altogether to suggest that being at home is to somehow bow out, put aside endeavors, and chill out with the kid. Yes, I have given up some things and my personal time is very limited. No I don’t choose to bring in a salary or go to work during the day while someone else takes care of my child. But my brain and the skills God has given me are not simply put on a shelf. These are things I bring to my life as a mother and to my life as a human.

     I try very hard to not accept or reject ideas based on their “worst case scenario” examples. I would probably be classified as a complementarian, but don’t want someone to reject this viewpoint because there are men out there taking advantage of their wives and beating them into submission. I also don’t reject egalitarianism based on potential slippery slopes. I take issues with egalitarianism based on problems with its definition and NOT with the potential or actual problems regarding those who adopt the system of thought. That’s like saying homeschooling is wacko simply because you know a few socially awkward wierdos who turned out that way thanks to the homeschooling. The implementation may have been flawed, but I don’t think homeschooling as a system is (necessarily) flawed. Though I don’t intend to homeschool my own kids.
     I digress…
     There are really so many directions to go on this topic. Sorry to be so long-winded.

     LikeLike

107. Don’t forget about v. 21 which actually contains the verb “submit” that doesn’t exist in v. 22. Gotta love when English grammar doesn’t match the Greek. 🙂

     LikeLike

108. If I ran the zoo, no one would ever, ever, on penalty of lashings, be able to quote Eph 5:22 alone, out of the context of the entire chapter (if not the book) and at very minimum without vv.25,28 as the… complimentary… cite.

     /rant

     LikeLike

109. OK, I’ll bite … I guess I’d consider myself a complementarian, even though I’m not married. Eph. 5:22, wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

     Honestly, though, I don’t know how that will practically play out, in day to day life. And I don’t know if I can accept it! I’m 31 years old, I’ve lived on my own for almost 10 years, and I don’t know what it means to practically “submit” to a husband.

     Maybe if I find the right guy, this submission thing will be no big deal to me, because I’ll love and trust him.

     But for those who say the woman was created expressly to be man’s helper — that would directly contradict what Paul said about singleness being actually preferable in serving God. And, what would it say about God’s character, that he created woman for this reason, but He keeps some women single anyway??

     LikeLike

110. Madre, now if you WERE a pastor, that would be a pretty good message. Too bad you can’t say that with pastoral authority..

     LikeLike

111. I am the head of our household

     …and my wife is the neck, which moves the heat anyway it wants…..

     LikeLike

112. I think we need to stop and ask if the Bible was written with the intention of giving clear answers to all issues.

     Throughout my years in a variety of church circles I have heard Bible based arguments for each of the following issues. Some have used the Bible to claim these issues are clearly sin. Others conclude they are not.

     * Gambling
     * Drinking alcohol
     * Dancing
     * Mixed gender swimming
     * Females wearing pants
     * Females without head coverings in church
     * Females in leadership roles at church
     * Symbols like Christmas trees used in church
     * Use of drums in church
     * Use of musical instruments in church
     * Going to movie theaters
     * Listening to secular music
     * Birth control
     * Polygamy
     * Participating in Halloween
     * Participating in armed conflict
     * Being Protestant
     * Being Catholic
     * Being ______

     I’m sure you could add a few more to this list.

     And then there are some bigger past issues that people used the Bible to support:

     * Slavery
     * Crusades
     * Inquisitions
     * Apartheid
     * Hitler’s actions against Jews
     * Condemning interracial marriage
     * Ku Klux Klan
     * Many harmful cults

     We can learn from history that there are some obvious dangers to using scripture to promote a position that is not part of the central message of the Bible.

     I propose one of the biggest dangers is the divisions in Christ’s church that have been created by holding too tightly to these non-essential positions.

     I think Complementarianism is one of these non-essential discussions. I’m not sure if this was a central theme in scripture. It is not worth creating divisions over. What if we seek the Holy Spirit who dwells in us to guide each of us on this one?

     God bless.

     LikeLike

113. “But Aw-chie…!”

     “Aw, shut up and bring me a beer!”

     Er, Adam and Eve is a story, not a blueprint for gender relations (and if anybody believes they were real people, you’ve got to get out of your trailer more).

     If your heart is dead-set on living in a (how shall I put this?) *asymmetric* relationship with your spouse, then yeah, you can find this. Every relationship is unique. For my part, I find myself obeying my wife rather more often than she obeys me (which is wise).

     Good luck converting the Mrs. with all this “women, obey your masters” stuff!

     LikeLike

114. I am a woman. And feeling “called” does not necessarily mean one actually is called.

     From about 15 onward, I planned to become a pastor. In college, I joked that I wanted to become the first female Lutheran pope. I have a BA in Theology, minored in Greek – that was part of the pre-sem program after all. I even went to seminary with the plans of eventually fulfilling that dream. Any man who tried to stop me and apply that rule of “complementarian” was clearly some unenlightened throw-back misogynist pig who needed a good theological thumping by an intelligent woman.

     Then I actually stopped being led by my own biases and looked at what Scripture had to say on the matter. Someone told me that women were too important to be pastors. That changed everything.

     Of course, discussing the issue of women’s ordination also requires having a common understanding of what ordination means and what the role/office of Pastor is.

     I am perfectly capable of performing the duties of a pastor. Any tool can write a half-decent sermon and hand out wafers and wine with minimal mess. It’s not that difficult (heck, if Cwirla can do it…! ;)).

     That doesn’t mean I am called to do so. Even if I really really really really want to be a pastor so much that I sincerely believe that God has called me to do what Scripture plainly teaches against. The same thing applies to being a father. That’s not an option for me. Right along with brother, uncle and son.

     Am I oppressed? Nope. Oppression has nothing to do with it. God wanted me to be a female, with everything vocationally that goes along with it. So here I am, a woman.

     But at the same time, I do not appreciate the sexist attitudes of some legalists who think I need to check off certain items in order to be a “true” Christian woman, which is how most complementarians eventually end up and why I refuse to be one.

     LikeLike

115. Sam,

     A few comments. About women and Catholicism. Many have left because there is no ordination of women to the deaconate, the priesthood and therefore the bishopric.

     But, there are other roles that women can have and lead. All of the religious orders of women are led by women. Women can be leaders in dioceses and parishes.

     So I have a hard time believing in the mistreatment of women in the Catholic church.

     When I was a Baptist, I didn’t know of any other roles for women (and yes, I was upset at the lack of women pastors)

     I can’t explain my changing views, though.

     LikeLike

116. I’ve listened to sermons where it’s been said that women are gullible and therefore need the protection and guidance of male spiritual leadership.

     Is this a reasonable interpretation?

     I don’t really get it, but then I’m blonde as well….

     LikeLike

117. After with this discussion over the years, I am fatigued with this issue.

     I could care less what people do with their relationships or what they think the bible says about it. As long as there is no abuse, then to each their own.

     If people want to believe that a man is the head, fine. If they want to make the genders interchangable throughout societal roles, so be it.

     We live and learn. Peace in Christ be on us all.

     LikeLike

118. Here’s an old one:

     In Our family, I (the husband) make all the big decisions, and the wife is allowed to make the small ones. If we buy a new car, or a new house, or remodel the kitchen, it’s her decision. If we go to war with Canada, Invade Cuba or raise taxes on the middle class, it’s my decision!!

     Don’t know for sure, but it seems that complementarian could be derived from the thought of a woman being the helper or helpmeet, in other words making her complementary to the main man.

     LikeLike

119. Ephesians 5:21

     Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

     LikeLike

120. Where are the women on this blog? I see a couple of handles that might be female.

     Why would a woman who felt called to be an elder or pastor or teacher ignore that calling because a man told her to?

     Ignoring a calling is direct disobedience to His will, and nothing good can come of it.

     I fear many women are in states of sin and disobedience to God because they are trying to be obedient to men.

     I suppose we might get at the answer by looking at slavery. Millions of slaves were kept in bondage by men and their Bibles, yet I’d bet the Holy Spirit found a way to work despite the chains.

     In the case of women, that’s probably why He created the Methodist and Episcopal churches, where women can follow their calling without the bondage of men and our limited understanding of His will and ways.

     LikeLike

121. The men I know who subscribe to this viewpoint and who say that it primarily has to do with them being the spiritual head of the household, in practice use it to support far more. They attempt to control everyone in their family and think it is their right to make all of the important decisions.

     Over the centuries, the Bible has been used to justify the Crusades, the colonization of our country (including driving native American “savages” from their land, and such “Christian” acts as placing the severed head of Indian chief Metacom on a pole in Plymouth for two decades), enslavement of blacks, discrimination against blacks, native Americans and many others and the oppression of women.

     Of course the church did not want the Bible translated into the tongue of the common people! Then they might figure out that the Bible really does not support the church’s teachings on many things, including the treatment of the so-called “minorities”. So the church responded by burning some of the early translators at the stake – a very Christian act!

     Today it matters little that the Bible is readily available to almost everyone, at least in this country. The average church-goer is functionally Biblically illiterate. Their knowledge of the Scriptures and subsequent interpretation is based primarily on what they hear preached from the pulpit. Many tend to believe what they are told.

     Then again, the survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life revealed that approximately four out of ten Catholics who have left the church left because of Catholicism’s treatment of women. Should we suppose that the numbers would be drastically different for Protestant groups that treat women similarly?

     History has judged our culture’s past oppression of minorities. Perhaps we do not care how history judges us, but do we care how our children, grandchildren and God will judge us for our oppression of women – particularly oppressing them in the name of religion, using the Bible to supposedly support our oppression?

     LikeLike

122. Well…I know this: The RCC has a far different view of it than anything I heard with evangelicals. Trust me on that one.

     LikeLike

123. How old in history is the development of the Complimentarian emphasis in Scripture? Is this something with deep roots in the Western medieval church, or is it a product of some post-Reformation American guys, or what?

     LikeLike

124. That depends on how you define “divisions of labor.”

     And no, human nature is sinful and does not teach that husband is the head of the wife. However, Scripture does quite clearly – and in so many words (Eph. 5:23).

     But it is not a one-way relationship. Somehow that gets forgotten much of the time.

     The husband, while being the head, is to sacrifice for his wife’s well-being and consider her holy, perfect, spotless, and wrinkle-free. He is to consider her more important than himself. His wife gets to trust that he will do just that. That’s what it really comes down to. Authority is not given to be the “boss of” another, but to serve them.

     The problem is that we are sinners in relationships with other sinners, doing sinful things to one another. Things are not as God created them, but that doesn’t mean the perfect icon of Christ and the Church and their relationship does not still apply to husbands and wives (Eph. 5:32).

     LikeLike

125. Sounds like whatever “complementarianism” originally meant (and I assume it meant that there are distinct sex roles), it mutated into a justification for Male Supremacists.

     As IMonk put it: “This differs from Islam how?”

     But “men of sin” will always cite some Cosmic-level authority — Bible, Koran, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Nature, etc — to justify what they wanted to do anyway.

     LikeLike

126. No, human nature does not teach us that man is the head of the relationship.

     I doubt I would bless my daughter’s marriage to any man who thought he was the head of their relationship. She is the equal of any man, in any relationship, at any time in any place.

     But I doubt I’ll ever have to cross that bridge, because I’ve raised her smarter than that.

     LikeLike

127. BTW- you complementarians are doing a great job of saying “nature teaches this,” but I’m waiting for a response to my assertion that statements about “divinely ordained divisions of labor” aren’t textually based but are inferred, and that inference cannot be on the same level as direct statement.

     LikeLike

128. I just can’t buy the “order of creation” philosophy concerning men’s/women’s roles. Unless men and women had been created at exactly the same time, one had to be first. When twins are born, one is born first, not because he/she is special or different or has a different place in life, but because the birth process only allows one birth at a time. I guess God could have created both men and women at once, but he didn’t for whatever reason. I can’t make the leap that the reason was because man is somehow has “higher” place and that the woman’s job is to support and complement her husband simply because she was created after him and from him. Man was created from dust, but we don’t consider the dust his master and protector, do we? Or am I missing something….

     LikeLike

129. As I said above, I will give the title by email, but I’m not going to attract a mob of angry people defending a book.

     LikeLike

130. >The teaching in scripture is strictly for women to read and accept…

     This differs from Islam how?

     LikeLike

131. iMonk, which book did you buy? I’ve not studied the matter much, just know what I like and don’t like about certain views. Mark Driscoll preached a sermon on Marriage and Men a few weeks ago and began by recommending two books Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem and God, Marriage and Family by Andreas Köstenburger.

     As far as views that I like, I’ve found myself agreeing with Driscoll’s version of complementarianism more than any other. His view is very minimal and lax by comparison to SBC standards (which I find to be very chauvinistic). I remember Driscoll giving a brief definition in one sermon that was basically women can do anything in the church except be an elder which includes the position of the primary teacher from the pulpit. He said they can teach in any area of the church and serve in any area of the church, they can be professors at seminaries, but they may not be the official spiritual heads of the local congregation or higher if the church is involved in a hierarchy.

     This definition assumes Mars Hill’s presbyterian church structure so it wouldn’t be very useful to congregationalists. Which brings up an issue: how does gender roles and the amount of distinctives made relate to the church authority structure? Being in the SBC my whole life, I’ve been a part of congregational and presbyterian oriented churches. These experiences and from personal study of the Bible has lead me to believe that congregationalism has the weakest scriptural support between it, presbyterianism and an episcopacy. Seriously, what can an independent, autonomous, congregational church say with any authority on any issue? I doubt they can even speak authoritatively on as common a doctrine as the Trinity.

     This is the type of church that describes the vast majority of SBC churches. Is there any wonder that we have a lot of the problems we do when our ecclesial structure does more to inhibit discipline and accountability than encourage a biblical practice of it?

     LikeLike

132. ….does not human nature teach us that the man is the is the head of the relationship?…we dont need scripture to “know” that…The teaching in scripture is strictly for women to read and accept..and hence surrender to the authority of her man(God)..unfortunately this is a stumbling block for many..but they must come to terms with this before they can experience the fullness of God in marriage and experience what it was meant to be…sadly many women are masters at making the man BELIEVE he is in charge…conversly..men stopped being men a long time ago……

     LikeLike

133. I’m not sharing the name of the text because that will take the discussion down another road that I don’t want to go. I’ll be happy to give the name over email.

     LikeLike

134. Could you share the name of the text with those of us who are not part of the “complementarian” community?

     LikeLike

135. Frank wrote: I’m not sure that the customary ridicule of complementarians as chauvinists is particularly helpful to the debate

     I agree and said something like that in a long comment that I subsequently deleted. (I would say the same about complementarian critiques of egalitarianism that revert to jokes about limpwristed men and cracks at liberal theology.)

     I don’t know exactly how “the experts” infer decontextualized marital implications from OT cultural descriptions of slavery, but I like to employ a little of that Jesus-shaped spirituality to those texts myself.
     What did it mean for Adam to rule over Eve? What does it mean for Christ to rule over his church?
     Authority, yes. Abuse, no.

     LikeLike

136. In the post, I am referencing an extremely well known complementarian work endorsed by everyone who is anyone in the complementarian community as THE authoritative Biblical study. Phrases like “divinely ordained division of labor” and “inferred job description” come from this books chapter on marriage in the OT, not from me.

     LikeLike

137. We also need to be careful how we define “spiritual leader.” In the Ephesians 5 passage that calls the husband the “head” of the wife, it says that husbands “lead” through service, not authority.

     LikeLike

138. Mr. Hyde and iMonk, I’m sorry but I just don’t see what you are talking about in your interpretation of Genesis 3.

     LikeLike

139. Oops. I meant ” the works of various Complementarian Reformed Baptist preachers and authors.”

     LikeLike

140. I think one of the dangers comes when we see roles described, and try to make them prescribed.

     I don’t have a problem with men and women having different roles, just don’t assume and codify that they are restricted to these roles.

     LikeLike

141. I have a problem with the word “Complementarian,” although I agree with some aspects, simply because of the Reformed baggage it carries. I can see an all male priesthood, mainly from church tradition, but I don’t know that I could arrive there by sola scriptura. Of course, I’m more and more convinced that sola scriptura doesn’t exist, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

     Why am I bothered by the connotations of “Complementarianism” in the Reformed world? Because of the way I have seen it play out in my personal relationships. I know a man who beat his wife, violated two restraining orders, and is now sitting in prison who justified it all using (and, yes, contorting) the works of very Complementarian Reformed Baptist preachers and authors. One of his questions was, “When a wife refuses to submit, then what?” Well, he decided it was okay to force submission– in fact, it was his Biblical mandate.

     I have another friend who does consulting for some private schools. He told me about a Presbyterian school that wouldn’t higher female teachers because they didn’t want a woman to “teach or have authority over” the male students.

     While working as a housekeeper for the summer with an Evangelical college group, I met a female crew leader who was seriously worried about being in sin if her boyfriend was assigned to her house keeping crew.

     Seriously, this is taking it further than the Orthodox or Catholics. I don’t like assigning motives to others because I do not like it when other people do it to me, but at what point does a sincere desire to obey God end and simple rationalization of one’s own pre-existing misogyny begin?

     LikeLike

142. Why is it that these categories of “complementarian” and “egalitarian” have become definitive of the relationship between husband and wife? If I had to pick, I guess I’d go with a functional complementarian type of position, but that still doesn’t quite fit.

     As for your questions about abuses of the complementarian position, let’s not forget that our world is not currently in its original, pristine state. Sin has entered the picture and corrupted not only individual human beings, but their relationships with one another. What was originally created good and pure is far from it now.

     This is a bit of a hobby horse with me, so for expediency’s sake, I invite you to read a presentation on the subject that I gave at a conference a few years back. (Here’s hoping the link works!)

     LikeLike

143. Mr. Hyde,
     Just curious but how do you reconcile that with 1 Cor. 7:12-13 (ESV)
     To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. [13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.

     Is the husband supposed to force his wife to believe as he does? Life happens. One day you might be married to a believer that believes as you do. The next day you may wake up to find that is no longer true. I don’t think it would be right for the husband to say at that point that she has to go against conscience. You really can’t force one to believe the gospel. Though I suppose you could force one to go through the motions. I don’t think that would be the Christian thing to do. I don’t think that the Christian woman who finds herself married to an Athiest has the duty to look at her husband as the spiritual head. Though it does limit her options where 1 Cor. 14 is concerned.

     LikeLike

144. I did the research on what a complementarian is, and in doing so decided that I am one (even though the vocabulary term was new to me). Like Michael, I cannot see that a stay at home dad is living in sin while his wife is, to use his example, a doctor. Is that enough to keep one from being a complementarisn?

     In our pre-marital counseling, my wife expressed to her pastor that she wanted me to be the spiritual leader in our home. We consider ourselves equal as believers; but if we come to an impass, the final decision on a weighty issue affecting our home is mine to make. Taking the role of “spiritual leader” very seriously, I wouldn’t have us join a church my wife hates. I am commanded to love my wife “as Christ loves the church.” I intentionally do not make decisions that would lead her to decide she no longer wants to be led by me nor live in our home; there’s a lot at stake here.

     I don’t get the bread winning issue. Currently, I make about twice the income per twelve months as my wife does, but it’s not always been that way. When she worked a union job for the all powerful phone company, I worked a series of odd jobs and at times no job at all. I often had a hot meal sitting on the table when she came home, and she appreciated it. Even during those times, we both still felt that I was the spiritual leader; paying for groceries, rent and utilities is hardly a spiritual endevor.

     My research also yeilded a list of prominate Christian leaders in the complimentarian camp, some of which are held in high regard by Michael Spencer. They included, but are not limited to: Albert Mohler, Mark Driscoll, C. J. Mahaney, Adrian Rogers, John MacArthur, and John Piper. If it’s his desire to become complimentarian, I hope he makes it.

     (I debated added my name to that list. I’ll check with my wife first.)

     LikeLike

145. iMonk, are you sure that you are not making a straw man out of complementarianism? I am a complementarian, but in no way does that require a “division of labor” that would not allow for a stay-at-home dad or a wife that is a doctor.

     Responsible complementarianism does not hold that position and I wonder if perhaps you have not seen a good resource that holds complementarian views fairly. Have you read Kostenberger’s “Women in the Church”?

     LikeLike

146. I’m having trouble focusing at work, so I’ll jump on this grenade. I’m not sure that the customary ridicule of complementarians as chauvinists is particularly helpful to the debate. There are good and biblically-faithful reasons to hold to this position, as there are good, faithful and biblically literate Christians who hold to it – see Jared Wilson for example (sorry to drag you back into it, bud). And for the record, my wife – who no one will ever mistake for being meek or mild – is much more of a complimentarian than I am.

     I don’t see much validity in dismissing the position simply because it can lead to mistreatment of women, for the same reason I don’t dismiss the exclusive claims of Christianity despite the fact that historically those claims were used to justify the mistreatment of Jews, Muslims, and other unbelievers. Both are unquestionably faulty conclusions.

     As to Michael’s point about drawing a line from Genesis 1-3 to the complementarian position, 1 Cor 11 seems relevant. In it, Paul appeals to creative order in describing some kind of hierarchy, and interpreting “head” as “source” requires some significant exegetical gymnastics, in my opinion. This was in a Roman culture that was not particularly male dominated, especially compared with ancient middle eastern cultures (i.e. women could initiate divorce and were not seen as property).

     There’s not enough in this comment to convince anyone to switch views, sure, nor is that really my intent. But I would hope that those who disagree with me would at least be consider that there are intelligent, biblical reasons for holding to a complimentarian position.

     LikeLike

147. That’s basically the functional view I have (though in all honestly it has problems of its own, like our Catholic-Protestant marriage.) It’s all these other roles that seem to come out of “inferences” that concern me, and the vigor that so many apply them with.

     LikeLike

148. I suppose I am jumping into the wrong conversation here, but I am a complementarian. Perhaps though, I would be considered a liberal complementarian. This is because I do hold that men and women are equal in value/worth but have different roles. I think the real crux is not about the equality but what are the roles. I also think that the role of men and women has only truly become an issue in the United States in the past few decades because of the women’s lib movement.

     Now that I have ticked everyone off 😉 let me say that I think the clear role of the man in Scripture is to be the spiritual head of the house. This is what was at stake in Genesis 3. God didn’t chastise Eve because of her “failing to consult her God-given protector and provider.” Genesis 3 makes it clear that God looked at Adam for not fulfilling his role as spiritual leader. Look at 3:9, “But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” (emphasis added). Likewise, God chastised Adam in 3:17 “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it.'” There was no such chastisement of Eve.

     This leads to the whole problem I have with those who think the Bible describes the complementarian position that women should stay at home, clean the house, and take care of the kids. The Bible does not say that. What it does make clear is that the man is the be the spiritual leader of the house. I don’t care if my wife wants to go out and make more money than me and I don’t care if she wants to stay home and take care of our son. What I do care about is that she lives a godly life and helps to raise our son in a godly manner; whether that entails her staying at home or working is of no importance to me. My God-given responsibility is not to “lord” over my house with an iron fist, but to “lord” over the spiritual matters concerning my household. Because even though Eve was the first to be disobedient, God looked first at Adam.

     That’s my “liberal” complementarian viewpoint. 🙂

     LikeLike

149. Get off that blasted phone and go make me a sammich woman! *looks around* What?

     LikeLike

150. I feel you.

     Right now I think Christian couples are holding Christ as the “authority” and “head” of the family and having either the husband or wife fulfill whatever role needs filling by whoever is available at the time.

     LikeLike

151. I for one hope that there isn’t a “next time.” I don’t see complementarianism helpful at all, or as you point out, a faithful way of interpreting scripture. Scot McKnight had a link a few weeks ago to an article by Susan Thistlewaite Brooks on similar interpretations and the consequences, the main one being physical and even sexual abuse of women. I would guess that no complementrian would sanction that, but the position can lead to it despite that.

     LikeLike

152. Oh, I should like to point out for the record, while not having the time to engage your excellent questions/probing, that I am a complementarian myself. Even if some of my brothers won’t claim me.

     LikeLike

153. I’m really open to seeing that scripture says Jared Wilson was living in sin when he was a stay-at-home dad.

     Romans 3:23 🙂

     LikeLike

154. It’s either extremely ironic or extremely appropriate that you put up this post on the feast day of St. Catherine of Sienna (with St. Theresa of Avila, in 1970 the first women to be declared Doctors of the Church) 🙂

     Famous for nagging the Pope to get his backside out of Avignon and back to Rome (er, she might have phrased it more gracefully than that), some examples of her style:

     http://www.domcentral.org/trad/stcather.htm

     “For example, during the Great Western Schism, in defense of Pope Urban VI, she rebuked three Italian cardinals who were supporting the anti-pope, writing to them, “what made you do this? You are flowers who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek.”

     These words are strong, and it is not recommended that we imitate them. St. Catherine had a unique call from God, which Pope Paul VI referred to as her “charism of exhortation.”

     Wanting Pope Gregory XI to leave his residency in Avignon and return to Rome, and knowing the Supreme Pontiff was afraid of being poisoned, Catherine wrote to him, “Be not a timorous child, but manly . . .” she spoke to him as a loving daughter would. In other parts of her letters to the Popes she used an affectionate pet name for them: Babbo, which means Daddy.

     To Giovanna, the Queen of Naples, who supported the anti-pope and was accused of murdering her husband, St. Catherine wrote, “You know that you do ill, but like a sick and passionate woman, you let yourself be guided by your passions.”

     Catherine risked death by sending such words to the authorities of her time. But she was not afraid. “I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, not in myself” was one of her favorite prayers.”

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena

     LikeLike

155. The Israelites were also trying hard to stamp out the worship of the goddess Ashtaroth after they invaded Canaan.

     While this wouldn’t be directly responsible for their male-dominated society, it does get at the fact that 99% of the time God is presented as male in the scriptures.

     As far as we know, the first gods were in fact goddesses, because woman creates life and her body is mysteriously in tune with the moon.

     LikeLike