If you don’t know what a complementarian is, please do that bit of research first. Thanks.
I’ve harped on this subject a bit before while wondering where is the secret book.
I’ve not been one to be convinced by a great deal of the exegetical reasoning I’ve heard from complementarians. I assumed the problem must be with my sources- internet pundits and preachers with little scholarly acumen. So I asked around for the best serious, scholarly treatment of the complementarian position on all issues related to gender, marriage and family. The recommendations were unanimous, and I dropped the cash (not Kindle format even) and acquired the recommended book.
I’ve just finished the chapter that explains the complementarian exegesis of Genesis 1-3.
I want to be impressed. I’m really open to seeing that scripture says Jared Wilson was living in sin when he was a stay-at-home dad. But I’m sorry. I’m not getting there.
I keep reading exegetical reasoning that is eaten up with the same problems:
Assuming conclusions with weak or no explicit textual support.
No text that actually says what is asserted in an important, Biblical command. (Relying instead on inferences and assumptions)
No interaction with the issue of interpreting scripture in the light of what we know about the place of women in ancient middle eastern culture.
For example, here’s a statement that the Bible commands a “division of labor†in marriage and family. I am, of course, aware that in ancient cultures it was assumed that men were the primary breadwinners, but I’m at a loss of how we get from there to a divinely endorsed “division of labor†that makes it, in fact, rebellion against God for my friend Chris to stay at home with the kids while his wife is a doctor. (In fact, one of the most prominent conservative pastors I know has a wife who is training to be a doctor. Does such a choice violate a divinely ordained “division of labor?â€)
In another place, the text states that when the woman was made the man’s “helper,†she was placed “under his overall charge.†Am I the only one that wonders how far we are entitled to expound these kinds of ideas that take a Biblical statement and then build an “obvious†application that is, at best, considerably less-than-equivalent?
The idea of being “under his overall charge†is not offensive to me per se, but given the explicit language of mutual submission and mutual love given to all married Christians, there are massive areas of discussion and diverse interpretation possible. I have to admit that it’s this sort of “secret book of mandated interpretations†approach that causes me to question whether some complementarians have seriously considered the authority behind some of their pronouncements.
Another quote says that being the man’s helper “sums up her (woman’s) very reason for existence.†This seems to me to open doors that it’s simply not necessary to open. If we spend our time as evangelicals establishing the meaning and value of human life in reference to God, what happens when we tell women their “reason for existence†is to be “under the charge†of a man? A further quote says that women will only find happiness in this God-ordained role. Is this the Biblical framework for discussing personal fulfillment? Again, I’m left wondering if we can ride that horse as far as we’re trying to ride it.
Later, Eve is faulted for “failing to consult her God-given protector and provider†in Genesis 3. Is this how the Bible frames the issue of Eve’s sin at the fall? I’m quite prepared to accept the failure to act as a married couple should act as a valid application of what we read in Genesis 3, but I’m not ready to insist that the Bible is explicitly drawing those conclusions. It seems to me those are possible applications, but they can’t be cited with the same authority as scripture itself.
Finally, another section states that the Old Testament does not contain an explicit job description for husbands, but it is possible to “infer†such a job description. I agree, and would put such a set of conclusions on the level of inference, not explicit and authoritative commands. Given how far some advocates of hierarchical family life are willing to go in their “inferences,†it seems we should be cautious and not instantly enthusiastic about every sincere application of this principle.
Before leaving this subject, I want to voice one complaint that I have yet to see addressed regarding marriage and gender issues.
How do we evaluate the demeaning of women in the ancient middle east to the status of property existing for male pleasure and status? Particularly, how do we relate this to the complementarian approach to these texts?
At some point, we have to admit that between the pronouncements of God’s judgements on male and female in Genesis 3 and the status of women in the ancient middle east, there was a point crossed that Christians should not cross.
For example, here are some of the laws of Exodus 21:
Ex. 21:7   “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her* for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Christians obviously recognize that this world of polygamy and slavery is not their world and that the interaction of the genders here is not what anyone advocates as the Kingdom of God.
But what troubles me is that the connecting line from Genesis 3 (“He shall rule over youâ€) to this passage and other examples of ancient middle eastern devaluing and oppression of women is often not clear. This is ancient Israel’s version of men “ruling over†and “having charge over†women. It is in the context of the law and of inspired scripture. Where does it cross the line into sin? A man’s responsibilities toward concubines and slaves provides the author of the text I’m reading with authoritative expression of a man’s duty to his wife. I can’t imagine using such a text with my students without a clear explanation as to why I could use the text authoritatively in one sense and reject it in another.
The entire direction of the treatment of women in the ancient middle east is problematic, but for some complementarian advocates and scholars there is a sense that the various gender relations assumed in ancient middle eastern cultures are “safe†to use in interpreting texts about the roles of men and women today.
So much for my attempt to gain some traction in understanding complementarianism. Maybe next time.
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.
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?
[Mod edit] The ESV translation of 2:18 as “a helper fit…” is not particularly “helpful” in this issue either.
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=18
the Hebrew expression ×›Ö¼Ö°× Ö¶×’Ö°×“Ö¼×•Ö¹ (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.
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!
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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?
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?
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…”
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.
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.
“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.
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!
“heck, if Cwirla can do it…!
).”
I just make it look easy.
What about a “wife” married to an alcoholic Man ? Should HE be “over” her ?
What about widows or unmarried gals ? Spinsters ?
What about Christ ?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
“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..
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.
Joannie D said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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?
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.
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Driscoll said that? Ouch.
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.
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.