I don’t often read materials from the so-called “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” (CBMW). They promote a complementarian position, that is (to put it rather tendentiously), that whereas men and women are supposedly equal in status, all of the roles in the church and the family which are generally considered to be of high status are reserved for men only. As my regular readers know, this is not my position. Authors associated with CBMW, such as Wayne Grudem, often try to justify their position from Scripture, but in my opinion, explained further below, their arguments are generally seriously deficient.
But my attention was drawn to a series of posts on the CBMW blog in which David Kotter, Executive Director of CBMW, responds to my blogger friend Molly Aley. See also the discussion here, and Molly’s response to the series (which includes an excellent account by Elijah McKnight of how he moved from complementarianism to egalitarianism when he learned a proper approach to the Scriptures).
In part 2 of the series Kotter seeks to root CBMW’s complementarian position in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
The complementary nature of manhood and womanhood and its implications for the home and church can only be defended from the Scripture alone.
But in fact neither his logic nor CBMW’s arguments for complementarianism support this conclusion.
In the lead-up to this conclusion Kotter argues:
The foundation of the complementarian position cannot rely on reason alone. There is not a convincing rational argument about why I should lead my family and not my wife. … The argument for complementarianism depends ultimately on Scripture alone.
I can’t make a convincing argument for male headship in marriage based on my feelings alone. Feelings are a helpful guide …
I can’t make a convincing argument for male leadership in the church or headship in marriage based on tradition alone, even though it has been the long-standing practice of the Church for centuries. …
Well, fair enough. His position cannot be established from any one of reason, feelings or tradition alone. But it is false logic to conclude from this that the position depends on Scripture alone. Logically, it would be quite possible for the position to be supported by more than one of these. In fact, if we borrow (in an adapted form) the analogy of a stool from ElShaddai Edwards, the conclusion will be all the more stable and certain if it has more than a single support.
But let us examine more closely Kotter’s claim that complementarianism “can … be defended from the Scripture alone”. Does this claim really hold? If it did, then wouldn’t every interpreter of the Bible find it supporting complementarianism, and wouldn’t egalitarians have to justify their position by rejecting the authority of Scripture? But (despite Kotter’s attempt in the first part of the series to portray “99% egalitarian” Molly Aley as rejecting this authority because she dared to question Sola Scriptura) there are plenty of exegetes of the Bible who have found that it teaches an egalitarian position.
Kotter attempts to answer this question in the third and apparently final part of the series. He does so by quoting from Wayne Grudem, concerning cases in which the Bible does have something to say on an issue (as presumably he assumes in this case) but interpreters disagree on what:
A second alternative more relevant to the gender debate is that believers have made mistakes in their interpretation of Scripture. Grudem says, “This could have happened because the data we use to decide a question of interpretation were inaccurate or incomplete. Or it could be because there is some personal inadequacy on our part, whether it be, for example, personal pride, greed, lack of faith, selfishness, or even failure to devote enough time to prayerfully reading and studying scripture.”
Indeed. And it is good to see in Kotter (is it also in Grudem?) a willingness to consider the possibility that this applies equally to both sides in this debate:
Please understand this primarily as a call to both complementarians and egalitarians for humility in dialogue, heart introspection, and a renewed zeal for engagement over the biblical texts themselves.
So, it may be the complementarians as well as the egalitarians who are working with incomplete data, or with personal inadequacies, and so the mistaken interpretation of Scripture might be their complementarian one. Is this what Kotter really means to say? I hope so. But if he really wants “humility in dialogue” and is open to the possibility that the Bible does not teach complementarianism, why is he Executive Director of an organisation which campaigns for the complementarian position, and which, at least in the past, has done so with dogmatism and arrogance?
So, what is the real basis for the complementarian position of CBMW? I touched on the underlying issues in my series last year on The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible. The matters I looked at there are both deeper and wider than gender issues, but differences relating to gender roles are one of the places where they are most clearly seen in practical application. And so I took the position of Grudem and CBMW as an example in that series. I wrote there, in the first part, that:
I have examined … what has been written on this subject by Grudem and his collaborators, and I cannot accept that it is truly scholarly. Books like The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy
, by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, are full of elementary misunderstandings of Greek and linguistics, and show every sign of being an attempt to put a scholarly dress on to an argument which is in fact based on fundamentalist proof texting.
In part 2 of that series I pointed out the major weakness of this fundamentalist approach:
It can be highly selective; an interpreter can choose to give great importance to small phrases, even the tiniest grammatical details, which support the position which he or (more rarely!) she supports, while ignoring the main teaching point of the passage in question. It can also be highly ingenious in finding excuses to dismiss other passages which seem to be contradictory – while rejecting similar attempts to dismiss the original interpretation as “deny[ing] the clear teaching of Scripture“.
In fact, it is possible to support almost any position on any issue of current controversy in the church with this kind of interpretation of Scripture. (Yes, I could even put together an argument for gay bishops if I wanted to!) An interpreter can take a verse of two out of context, selectively latch on to small points within those verses, and use them as support for any teaching they might choose to promote. They then use their ingenuity to reinterpret any verses which might seem to contradict their position.
I did not point out in that series the extent to which this fundamentalist approach is in fact based on tradition. But in fact the only reasons that I can see for these interpreters to rely on the passages which support their position and dismiss those which do not are tradition and prejudice.
Now sometimes prejudice may be a factor, at least if presented in a more positive light as unthinkingly accepting presuppositions from one’s cultural background. I have suggested that this may be a factor in John Piper’s complementarianism.
But it seems clear that a major reason why complementarians, especially those in the Reformed tradition like Grudem and Piper, base their doctrines on certain passages and not on others is that they are following the Reformed tradition of exegesis. Now I am sure that at least a large part of what their heroes the Reformers and Puritans wrote was excellent. But they were men (never women, among those commonly cited) of their time, and they were working with pre-modern understandings of the biblical text and its cultural background. They surely made some mistakes. They would never have accepted being treated as infallible authorities, as sometimes they are today, and they never should be. Instead, their contributions to Christian thinking need to be assessed carefully and critically.
Kotter writes, in part 1:
Is the Bible clear? It certainly claims to be.
But it seems that the clear teaching which he claims to find in it is in fact very often simply the traditional Reformed interpretation, which is often in fact not at all the interpretation which would be arrived at by a reader not familiar with this tradition. For he ignores the main point of one of the references he cites out of context, which is that the Scriptures
contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort … to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16 (TNIV)
Understanding the Bible is not a trivial matter. We cannot pretend that we can simply lift verses out of context and find in them simple answers to every question about the Christian life. Hard work is needed, and the humility to realise that one’s own understanding is not always correct.
The danger with arguments like Kotter’s is that they end up entirely dependent on a particular tradition of interpretation of the Bible. Those who are sometimes loudest in rejecting church traditions, especially those associated with Roman Catholicism, are often the most reliant on the Reformed tradition of interpretation. They claim to base their doctrines on Sola Scriptura, but to the outside observer, one sceptical about their tradition of interpretation, it looks rather as if they are really following Sola Traditio, tradition alone.
Peter, you know that I agree with your position and with everything you’ve said here.
But I kind of wonder if your distinction between fundamentalist interpretation and scholarly interpretation is a bit too sharp. It seems that there is probably some wiggle room in the middle as well.
Some of the best friends of mine who are complementarians are those who have not been so dogmatic. Moody is a complementarian school (though, the vast majority of the professors are very, very humble on the issue [and one of them is ‘umble with glottal stop]). There were plenty of students that talked with and I was encouraged by what I say. Most younger complementarians don’t know what an egalitarian looks like. They’ve never seen another other interpretation and are very curious about why an egalitarian believes what he believes – which was very encouraging to me.
Which is all very odd, Mike, because Moody used to train women on par with men as missionaries and then went into a complementarian dive later.
Was anyone at Moody aware that it had started as a training school for women evangelists and missionaries and the men road on the coattails of women in this institute?
It should have remained a school exclusively for women and not let men in at all. But there you have it. The men saw a good thing and wanted in. Then they all became complementarians. This is a recent aberration of Christianity, in fact. There was a time when women just weren’t wanted as preachers in their home town but it was fair game anywhere else.
Indeed, and most people at MBI these days are not at all aware of its history.
Peter, this was really good. Thanks.
i told a few people that in the school’s first few decades of existence, it trained women pastors, which was really surprising to many of my friends.
IMO Complementarianism is one of the darkest forms of misogyny the church has seen in a long time. For most of church history, there was some sense that women were to be pitied or despised for their inferiority. But the comps ask women to carve out their souls and declare that total submission of one equal to another is joyous.
Complementarianism is a method of depriving women of basic human rights.
However, there seem to be four kinds of complemententarian women.
1. The seriously abused and unhappy. That’s when you feel that you wish you were an animal so someone could mercifully put you out of your misery.
2. The ones who learn to manipulate men by the judicious use of sex tips.
3. The ones who believe that “submit as to the Lord,” means that the woman is the moral jusdge of her husband at all times. I don’t even want to be in the same room as a woman like that, but I understand that it is a survival technique.
4. The ones who practice and teach boundary setting, which basically is a technique taught in the books by Cloud and Townsend on how to say no and mean it.
Now, if complementarian women are all taught number 4, they at least have some survival skills. What bothers me to no end, is that these women seem to despise those of us who have been abused and marvel that any woman would not have her mouth already formed in the shape of no from the get-go.
I am setting my boundaries and saying a resounding no to male hierarchy.
I hear you, Suzanne. When I left patriarchy, the main message I got from dissenters was that “we obviously didn’t do it right” or I wouldn’t be dissatisfied. When in reality, we followed the books to a t. Dude, *they said* the husband was the leader of the home. So we took them literally. He led, I followed. He made rules, I obeyed them.
Upon leaving and sharing bits and pieces of my story with close comp friends, they said it was shocking that my husband handed me lists of rules, gave orders, told me what to do and when to do it. Yet, um, wasn’t that what we comps said he had the right to do—to lead, to say how things were going to be?
They said their husbands had never given them one rule in their entire marriage. Well, uh, neato, but mine did, and under comp theology, I had no other alternative but to obey him—-and, might I add, under comp theology, he was being a good leader by being very clear about the way he wanted things to be.
We still have a very difficult time communicating, after eight years of living as superior and inferior. We currently just don’t talk about deep things at all. It is just better that way (though I hope we can grow into that in years to come).
I love him and he loves me. Even so, I get a visceral stomach-sick reaction whenever he does something that I feel like is domineering, though probably half of the time he’s not even being that way…I’m just over-sensitive due to years of being crushed slowly down. I see anything that looks like a foot stepping on me and I literally want to throw up. I say so. Now I have the freedom to speak. There’s nothing wrong with kindly, respectfully saying, “No.”
A very kind man like my husband (in his pre-patriarchy days) could have learned so much in our early years, how to communicate, how to relate peer-to-peer, how to think of me as a competant adult instead of a garden that he was to plant as he saw fit. But instead, our diet of comp/patriarchal materials as well as our own fundamentalist way of interpreting Scripture led us down a very destructive path. While it’s been very hard on me, I think it’s been even more difficult for him, at least down in the deepest places of the human soul.
We practice loving eachother as we would want to be loved, now. How could we have ever thought that a relationship could only work if one person is in charge? I defer to him regularly, and he defers to me. We appreciate each others different strengths. We work to walk in the Spirit towards eachother, learning to be full of the Spirit’s fruits of love, joy, and peace instead of who’s on top, who’s on bottom.
I can’t believe we fell for the lie of hierarchy so hard, but to hear that the only reason I left patriarchy is because “I did it wrong” (as I’ve been hearing lately—a lovely blog post recently indirectly wrote about me in that light) makes me so frustrated. No. We did it textbook style. That was what was so bad about it.
Thanks for the comments. To much of this, all I can say is that I am listening and I feel your pain.
Mike, I accept that the divide between fundamentalist and scholarly methods of interpretation is not a hard and fast one. There are many who try and more or less succeed in taking a mediating position. To be fair to Grudem and associates, they try, but too often they are caught retreating into what I have called fundamentalist tactics, proof-texting and ignoring or summarily dismissing anything which seems to contradict their presupposed or traditional understanding. I guess everyone, including myself, does this from time to time, but the true scholars should at least accept correction when such matters are pointed out.
However, there seem to be four kinds of complemententarian women.
I feel disrespected by your “categories”.
It doesn’t sound like you think very highly of complementarian women.
Charis, I can’t speak for Suzanne whose categories you cite. But as for me, I intend no disrespect to complementarian women. My point was that their voice is rarely heard, because complementarian men ignore them, and egalitarians tend not to cite complementarians. It has been good to hear something of your voice on comments at Complegalitarian, and it would be good to hear it here also.
You make some good points, Peter. But some things are not sitting quite right with me.
Peter said:
Understanding the Bible is not a trivial matter. We cannot pretend that we can simply lift verses out of context and find in them simple answers to every question about the Christian life. Hard work is needed, and the humility to realise that one’s own understanding is not always correct.
Doesn’t the Bible have answers for Christians?
Do Christians need a “superior” in the form of a “scholar” to interpret Scripture for us? (that is reminiscent of my Catholic upbringing- where the priest interpreted for us. I considered myself unqualified to read the Bible and understand it for MYSELF!) Does God want us dependent upon “authority figures” to spoon feed us Scriptures?
What do you mean by “hard work”?
fundamentalist proof texting.
What do you mean by “fundamentalist proof testing”?
I have had experiences where a single WORD from the Scriptures goes right to my heart, “alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword”. Beth Moore has a strong emphasis upon scripture memory- “changing the wallpaper of your mind” and rightly so, I believe! “Proof texts” if you will, about who I am in Christ and what HIS will is for me.
Dear Molly,
Your testimony is powerful.
Do you have a link where you have posted more of your testimony?
I hesitate to get into a tangential dialogue here on Peter’s blog, but I see a fatal flaw in what you practiced- that is the confusion of “submission” with “obedience”. BTDT
Good questions, Charis.
No. They have a choice. They can rely on a “superior”, hopefully in the form of a well educated pastor. And some may need to do this for reasons of time or ability. But what I would recommend for every Christian, at least gradually, is to study enough of the Bible together with its background (this is the hard work!) to be able to understand it from a “scholarly” perspective for themselves. Only a few will be able to do this entirely without dependence on scholars (via their books), but the dependence the rest need should be mainly related to technical matters of exegesis.
The problem comes when one’s faith, and one’s major understandings about it, become dependent on the application (not just the exegesis) made by a particular school of authors. This is when it becomes too close to Sola Traditio.
I mean when people “simply lift verses out of context and find in them simple answers to every question about the Christian life”. This is a different concept from taking God’s guidance for one’s own life from a Scripture verse one may find. The latter needs to be done with care, but can be valid in a way which the former cannot. The real problem is where proof texts are considered to provide answers which are authoritative for all people in all situations, which is the way they are sometimes used by fundamentalists.
Charis,
I’ve been one most of my life so I am not writing as an outsider.
Most complementarian women seem to be in group number 4, those who I would admire, and I just wish that I had known that, for those women who survive, submitting actually means saying no. I just never figured that out.
But now I feel despised because I was never able to set boundaries myself although I tried long and hard. They were simply never respected.
I don’t see enough recognition for the fact that the responsibility of the wife is to say no, and if it isn’t accepted then she should leave.
You yourself describe submission as sharing in the suffering of Christ. But the true complementarian view is that submission is joyous. Quite frankly I just don’t see you as a “complementarian.”
I can’t semantically equate “submitting” with “saying no”.
Charis,
I’ve been one most of my life so I am not writing as an outsider.
Most complementarian women seem to be in group number 4, those who I would admire, and I just wish that I had known that, for those women who survive, submitting actually means saying no. I just never figured that out.
Who is going to prevent young women from learning the hard way as some of us here have.
But now I feel despised because I was never able to set boundaries myself although I tried long and hard. They were simply never respected.
I don’t see enough recognition for the fact that the responsibility of the wife is to say no, and if it isn’t accepted then she should leave.
You yourself describe submission as sharing in the suffering of Christ. But the true complementarian view is that submission is joyous. Quite frankly I just don’t see you as a “complementarian.”
I can’t semantically equate “submitting” with “saying no”.
Hi, Charis. I believed that a wife should obey her husband, based on 1 Peter 3 (where the specific word obedience is used).
We were very much literalists. The books we read (such as from Vision Forum, Douglas Wilson, Debi Pearl, etc) only served to encourage that.
I do think Suzanne left out a catagory of complementarian women, which would be most of the women that I know in real life:
5. Women who are sweet, kind, and smart, and are also solidly convinced that when they marry, God said they are to be under the leadership of their husbands, so they shrug their shoulders, not necessarily understanding why they must submit but willing to do whatever, even with a good attitude.
For the most part, this usually works out fine because their husbands are loathe to the idea of ordernig around their wives and so instead treat them like peers. The only time “submission” comes into play is in a major disagreement when both parties simply can’t agree.
That said, this is also the most difficult group to talk to about male/female roles, because they have a very positive idea in their head as to what those roles look like (which is actually very egalitarian) and so will fight tooth and nail for a husband leading the home (and not realize that they are fighting for the patriarchal way of seeing things, which is a much different relational style than the one they share).
Okay, I’m taking back my catagory 5, which I wrote while Suzanne was typing. 🙂 Now that you explain group 4 better, Suzanne, I see what you were saying (and that it’s actually group 5). Ignore me…
🙂
Charis, my story is on my blog on the “On Women” catagory, but it would require a lot of scrolling and whatnot, since it’s sort of all over the place. Also, this is probably the most openly I’ve ever spoken about it, specifics wise, so…
Charis,
The complementarian handbook, a slightly milder version of the patriarchy we were in, does indeed tell wives to *obey* their husbands. See chapter 10 of their handbook Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, called, “Wives Like Sarah and Husbands Who Honor Them.”
Quoting,
“Peter uses Sarah’s submission to Abraham as an example of such submissiveness to a husband. Wives are to be submissive to their husbands (vers 5) as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him her master (or lord). Peter does not seem to be referring to any one specific incident here, for the main verb and both participles in verse 5 all indicate a continuing pattern of conduct during one’s life.” (pg. 201 of the 1991 copy).
They can rely on a “superior”, hopefully in the form of a well educated pastor. And some may need to do this for reasons of time or ability.
That sounds hierarchy to me: hierarchy of “ability” or “training”.
Hi, Charis. I believed that a wife should obey her husband, based on 1 Peter 3 (where the specific word obedience is used).
but don’t overlook “obedient as Sarah”
AND note verse 1 where the instruction is addressed to wives which means that Peter and GOD apparently trusted us to be able to get to the bottom of what the passage is saying…
It’s actually a very hopeful, empowering teaching 🙂
I view it as a very beautiful teaching, in the historical context in which it was set (where wives choosing a religion different from their husbands was a rebellion that could get them the death penalty). I think Peter was advocating for very sweet gentle rebellion, which is something I think every Christian can learn from. We rebel against the system by following Christ, but we do so with a spirit of meekness and gentleness. 🙂
However, if one is going to take the passage literally, then we have an example of Sarah obeying her husband and calling him lord, and we women should follow in her footsteps.
We may have to disagree, here. 🙂
Warmly,
Molly
Quite frankly I just don’t see you as a “complementarian.”
You and I- we defy stereotyping Suzanne 😉
I can’t semantically equate “submitting” with “saying no”.
Submission is an attitude of humble cooperation which works in the highest best interest of the other even when it defies their “rules” and says “no”. One may concurrently submit and disobey (and be prepared to pay the consequences of disobedience).
Was Daniel submissive?
Was Paul submissive?
Was Jesus submissive?
Molly, you mean the apostle, not me, I think? I guess the rebellion I advocate some might consider not so sweet and gentle!
I note that the passage, 1 Peter 3:1-6, (and for that matter the quote from RBMW) carefully avoids saying that wives must obey. Wives are only told to “submit”, whatever that means but from Ephesians 5:21, it must be something which can be mutual. Sarah obeyed, as a historical fact, and Peter puts that forward as a good example, but without going as far as commanding it; in the more general case of the good example, verse 5, again he only says “submit”.
So, Charis, I am agreeing with you that “submit” is not the same thing as “obey”. Yes, Daniel and Jesus, Peter and John (not so sure about Paul) submitted to authorities by recognising their authority but at the same time refused to obey them because that would mean going against a higher authority. But I’m not quite sure how that principle can be applied to mutual submission in marriage.
However, if one is going to take the passage literally, then we have an example of Sarah obeying her husband and calling him lord, and we women should follow in her footsteps.
I take it quite literally, (I have some material on Sarah on the blog which is linked to my screenname). I do hope you will reconsider dismissing that passage. Doing so is a disservice to women in difficult marriages IMHO. It robs them of powerful teaching which WORKS in a marriage to a disobedient husband. Including patriarchal marriages (after all- isn’t Abraham a patriarch ;p)
I’m not quite sure how that principle can be applied to mutual submission in marriage.
In 1 Peter 3, I see unilateral submission instructed for the wife of a disobedient husband. Jesus is the role model described at the end of 1 Peter 2 for BOTH wife and husband in dealing with their spouse- note the equal opportunity “Likewise…” in verse 1 Peter 3:1 and 7. But what if the husband is not doing his part of the “Likewise…” instruction? Then God wants the wife to go first. She has the responsibility of unilaterally leading the way! She has the responsibility of unilaterally behaving Christlike!
She is to unilaterally role model Christ to him.
Jesus was submissive.
(not so sure about Paul) submitted to authorities by recognising their authority
read acts 23:5 in context for an example of Paul’s submission
That wives are instructed to submit does not confer authority upon husbands BTW. I think God knows our male and female frames and what will oil the gears of a marriage.
Thanks, Charis. Your last two comments are helpful. Was Abraham an example of a disobedient husband? Well, I guess in Genesis 16:2 he obeyed Sarah but disobeyed God! Then in 16:5-9 we see Sarah as not so submissive but both Abraham and Hagar submitting to her. But the time when Sarah called Abraham “lord” is apparently 18:12, by which time he is being obedient. Then in 21:10,12 Sarah is again not at all obedient, but Abraham submits to her. Is the apostle Peter really setting up Sarah as a model submissive wife? Which of Suzanne’s categories would she be in? 😉
I don’t see enough recognition for the fact that the responsibility of the wife is to say no, and if it isn’t accepted then she should leave.
She is God’s beloved daughter and God wants her to be safe in her own home.
You yourself describe submission as sharing in the suffering of Christ. But the true complementarian view is that submission is joyous.
“the fellowship of His sufferings” to which I referred is Phil 3:10
Paradoxically, suffering—-> joy
see also 1 Pet 1:6-8
Charis,
I know it is highly unfair to categorize and I am aware that I reveal my own disillusionment. I am open to criticism. We are all human and fallible.
Let me say that two years ago, I would have expressed myself as you do. I felt that I was able to hold things at bay and endure. I felt that this is what I needed to do as a Christian.
However, several very disturbing things happened. At that time, I also began to get severe headaches. I thought of going to the doctor, but I remembered that at the clinic there is a sign which asks you to give information of partner abuse. I knew in my heart that I should not lie to the doctor about this. I knew that the doctor would tell me to get out. I then put my energy into getting out rather than going to the doctor. It has taken almost a year to begin to feel physically whole again but I am improving daily.
I feel that my body was an alarm clock. At 50 my body said that I could not phyically continue to stand up to a bully and be on guard at all times. It was time to rest.
This is my view in retrospect. I also have some complementarian relatives, for example, my brother, who has now renounced his former beliefs. However, his wife is unable to do this. I now look back and think of all the advice she gave me and how damaging it was. I didn’t believe it entirely, but I acquiesced enough to remain in a bad situation. I think the really terrible thing was that I was taught that divorce was shameful.
I have many regrets and after 30 years of silence I am still processing what happened to me. Maybe I will express this in different terms later.
For me, leaving my husband has meant cutting all ties with all male authority churches. I cannot bear physically to hear it preached. In fact, my former husband has also broken all connection with male authority churches. I believe that our (mildly) complementarian church did both of us a terrible disservice.
However, because of what happened between us, now that I have left, I do not think that I should ever see him again. I do forgive him and wish him well. I am happy to have the children live with me and visit him.
(Just in case … – I am not open to receiving advice from others on whether I should see my former husband again. That is a private matter.)
I can hear the pain in your post. You and I agree, Suzanne, on the destructiveness of the bad doctrine. Its not only destructive for the wife, its destructive for the husband too. That is the thing about this debate- it is not just all book learning- REAL people are suffering intensely!
IIRC You mentioned that you hadn’t talked about the history much, Suzanne? I think it would be very healthy, healing, cathartic for you to find a safe place where you can talk about it. I won’t say that will be easy to do, nor pain free, but talking it out brings the kind of pain that heals.
Is the apostle Peter really setting up Sarah as a model submissive wife?
it really tickled me when I started looking at how Sarah was 😀
I think God has a sense of humor
and its a little bit sneaky on HIS part
or to sound more dignified, shall we say it is “veiled”?
Charis,
I smothered this pain for many years. I have now been talking about it for almost a year. But it takes time and a bit of distance to allow it all to come out. When in the situation it was just too terrible to let anyone know. I had to get out first. This is what is poorly understood. Some say that it is the strongest and more successful women who stay because they resist the humiliation of getting help. I had to help myself.
Maybe this was wrong but now with my son who has come home in the last few days, I can see his trust in me, and his confidence that I am able to take care of myself and provide for him as well.
I did have some counseling for a while but I have had so many practical issues and I work full time. I have seriously thought in the last few days that it is time to go back for more counseling, to find a safe place to talk. I made some inquiries a couple of days ago, and I may have someone.
But I never want to go back to being silent on this. I will always want to fight the terrible consequences of the male authority teaching.
PS I will always want to reveal to others how much is inserted into the Bible by those who teach male authority.
How many times have I neard complementarian theologians say that they can’t teach from a Bible which says “adoption of children” which is in Luther’s Bible. They can’t teach from a Bible which says, “the peacemakers shall be called the children of God” which is in Tyndale’s Bible. They can’t teach from a Bible which says the human race is called anything but Man, although this was not a part of the KJV and its tradition. They can’t teach from a Bible which says “assume authority” in 1 Tim. 2:12 although Calvin’s Bible says this.
These are just a few examples. In fact, present day complementarian theologians cannot teach their terrible theology from any Bible translated or endorsed by Luther, Calvin, Tyndale or the translators of the KJV.
Charis said, That wives are instructed to submit does not confer authority upon husbands BTW. I think God knows our male and female frames and what will oil the gears of a marriage.
Ah. Well. That is a *very* different view that the typical complementarian position.
(((((Suzanne))))))
I wish I could give you a hug IRL.
About 4 years ago I had migraines, stomach issues, I was depressed. My PA suggested antidepressants and I made the mistake of telling my husband. He called her up and reamed her out… told her that under no circumstances was I allowed to take any psych meds. God takes care of all our problems…
My symptoms were somaticizing- turning all the pain and anger in upon myself… We wound up in marriage counseling eventually (not because he was “willing”; he thinks psychology is “of the devil”; because he wanted to be a missionary and the mission board required it). The counseling made it much worse for awhile… its like all the infection that has been festering has to come to the surface- very painful. I switched from somaticizing to PTSD and hair trigger angry with him. I was obedient- no psych meds. You mentioned having regrets over stuff. I hope you don’t beat yourself up. We are all human, we all fail. I attacked him physically on several occasions (and he was not physically abusive towards me)…. I’m not proud of that. I wish I could have had more self-control.
In a “reap what you sow” manner, I see how a hyper controlling husband robs his wife of self-control (along with self determination).
Anyway, I just wanted to post some more personal testimony because you said “I feel despised because I was never able to set boundaries myself although I tried long and hard.”
You are not despised, Suzanne.
You are beloved.
Ah. Well. That is a *very* different view that the typical complementarian position.
Much like you, I am in recovery from theological misunderstandings.
I don’t feel comfortable in either camp…
I’ll be in the “Beth Moore” camp. I love her!
Bible, Bible, and MORE Bible- in the comp camp.
Charis,
I see some differences. There were several avenues that you have taken that were not possible to me. Going for counseling was one of them.
I do not beat myself up. I am happy and relieved where I am now. I do hope that other women can come to see that release and peaceful distance from an abuser is a godly choice.
At one time I spent a lot of time thinking about what it would be like to live out my life in “submission”. It would have been technically possible but I don’t believe it was right.
For me, it has meant complete withdrawal from any association with complementarian church teaching. However, that is part of a longer story. I am distressed simply knowing that the authority of the male is still taught.
I do not find male lead exegesis to be any better than any other kind. It is often worse. So, the only advantage to male authority, in my view, is that some men like this, it is their curse, that they want to rule women.
Fortunately the Bible says that we are to defer to one another, we are to treat our “next one” as ourself. Imagine if men were taught that their wife was their “next one” the one that they should submit to in mutual relationship, the one who has all the same concerns and ambitions and intellect and gifts, the one who may be given a mission or calling alonside them.
Well, in respect for this public forum, let me say what a pleasure it has been for me to be in a group on the internet strictly governed by the values of brotherly and sisterly affection, of friendship between men and women.
Is the apostle Peter really setting up Sarah as a model submissive wife?
I had another lightbulb moment recently. Actually, I heard a sermon very much like this one The Circumcised Life
about the process Abram and Sarai went through to arrive at Abraham and Sarah.
I’m sure y’all are aware of what the Hebrew name “Sarah” means? “princess”
Stop thinking Disney!
It means ruler. The sermon I heard points out that Sarai means “contentious”- my husband called me into the room to hear that 😉
So…
Sarai “contentious” —–> Sarah “ruler”
which reeks of authority and dominion (not over Abraham, but alongside Abraham)
1 Pet. “daughters of Sarah”= powerful women
To discount these powerful scriptures as “cultural” is trading your inheritance for a mess of stew, IMHO. If you really want to help women to be FREE and to walk in their GOD GIVEN authority and dominion, go deeper into the WORD instead of casting doubt what is GOD BREATHED, alive and active, sharper than any double edged sword:
Look at Sarah here:
Gen 21:9-12
Exactly how much more authoritative can one get?
All at once she speaks with authority into Abraham’s life, into history, and right into the Word of God in the new covenant:
Gal 4:29-31
Charis,
There may be some egalitarians who cast doubt on what is God breathed, but I am not sure that there are any of those in this discussion.
Complementarians seem to assume that egalitarians are like this, but of course, it is a generalization, just like any other.
I’ ll take your word for that, Suzanne,
Peter said
Do egalitarians do this too? I believe they do.
Peter said:
I say that sounds like another version of hierarchy. Only instead of male “authorities”, the scholars are the “authorities”.
We all seem to agree that women have authority bestowed upon them by God. I came to that conclusion via “fundamentalist hermeneutics”- plain reading of scripture. Same conclusion, different pathway.
One does not have to take seminary classes and spend years studying fat dusty history books about the historical context, and have letters behind their name, and titles and offices bestowed by denomiations. Its really cystal clear (though veiled) without all that. So clear, an ordinary wife can see it using nothing more than a Bible and some word study tools.
Charis,
I think Peter’s point is very simply that someone created the word study tools. There is a place for scholarly output, but there is not a hierarchy in people’s lives. I am sure God speaks to people in many different ways.
I use study tools in a similar way to you, and with a similar result. We may be using different word study tools because I don’t use Strong’s concordance but I do use word study tools and I discovered most of the same things you have.
The sad thing is that I wasn’t taught all these things before I became an adult. Here is little bit of Grudem trivia I found recently. This is about single men and women associating together.
Second, the temporal priority of the male in the image of God means that in general, within male-female relationships among singles, there should be a deference offered to the men by the women of the group, which acknowledges the woman’s reception of her human nature in the image of God through the man, but which also stops short of a full and general submission of women to men. Deference, respect, and honor should be shown to men, but never should their be an expectation that all women must submit to the men’s wishes. And for single men, there should be a gentle and respectful leadership exerted within a mixed group, while this also falls short of the special authority that husbands and fathers have in their homes or that elders have in the assembly. Because all are the image of God, and because women are generally the image of God through the man, some expression of this male headship principle ought to be exhibited generally among women and men, while reserving the particular full relationships of authority to those specified in Scripture-viz. in the home and the believing community.
……
The female’s becoming the image of God through the male indicates a God-intended sense of her reliance upon him, as particularly manifest in the home and community. … Divine representations who, in relationship with God and others, represent God and carry our their God appointed responsibilities-this, in the end, is the vision that must be sought by male and female in the image of God if they are to fulfill their vreated purpose.
Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood by Wayne Grudem.
I would want to protect my daughter from this kind of teaching. To me it is cult like. Of course, he stops short of full submission. Can you imagine!!!
WOW. What a nugget…
(Bearing in mind that I have no problem with us all giving eachtoher respect and deference—that isn’t the issue here).
This stuff is terrible! 🙁
charis,
That was cool, what you shared about Sarah’s name. Thanks!
I am new to posting on this forum but I have always thought the standard of debate here is of high quality.
Not sure that this helps in the current discussion, but one general principle I have found helpful in understanding what the Bible says on any subject is to try and get into the minds of the people for whom the words were written. How would the people of the time have understood them?
For me this has always been the key ‘scholarly issue’ to grapple with. One of the difficulties I have always had with evangelical theology is that people from Adam to Paul are viewed as if they were middle class Baptists who then went home for Sunday lunch after the morning service. This is denied of course by most evangelical commentators but I have often found it to be true.
(Not that I have anything against middle class Baptists- I’m one myself – and I like Sunday roasts…..)
Charis, what do you do when you find two scriptures which appear to contradict one another, such as one which may say that women cannot be “deacons” and another which says that a woman was a “deacon”?
The fundamentalist approach seems to be to pick one of them, arbitrarily or according to a tradition of interpretation, and set it up as authoritative, and dismiss the other for example as “cultural”. Can you do better than that?
I don’t see how you can if you stick with ““fundamentalist hermeneutics”- plain reading of scripture”. You find by this method that “women have authority bestowed upon them by God”. I agree. But what do you do with the Scriptures which appear to say the opposite? Why should I trust your selection of Scriptures rather than Grudem’s?
I can do better than this if and when I read what scholars of the Greek language have written about the words and sentences in question, and because I personally have to some extent learned how to argue in the same way as them.
Did Grudem really write this? Did he justify it in any way? This seems to me like clear and obvious heresy. Calvin would have had him burned at the stake for less.
Iconoclast, thanks for your comment. I like Sunday roasts too, although I am an Anglican. But you are spot on that we need to get inside the minds of the author and the original audience. This is of course not easy! But it is a worthy aim.
Iconoclast,
Your words are SO true. Thanks for sharing them.
I approach the dilemma with a “fundamentalist” comp style (literalist, authority of every word of the Bible) analysis:
Paul does not exclude female deacons (diakonos/servants/ministers).
In fact he commends Phoebe, a female deacon (diakonos, servant, minister): see Romans chapter 16 verses 1 and 27.
Therefore “husband of one wife” (”man of one woman”) cannot mean the exclusion of women from the role in question. If it did, Paul would be contradicting himself.
God’s Word does not contradict itself. Paul- under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit- would not contradict himself. Personally, I feel much safer and more confident with GOD’s own Word and Paul’s practice/interpretation of his own words rather than the way a church, interpretor, tradition, or commentary has taken them.
What scriptures to you hear as robbing women of their God-given authority and dominion?
My operating premise it that there is nothing in scripture which is intended to put down, demean, or disrespect women. If I hear disrespect toward women in the passage in question, then I assume that something is wrong with MY hearing NOT WITH GOD’s WORD!
My approach is to pray, meditate, and keep returning to God and Scripture in search of answers. Sometimes God will bring me answers through other Christians- the parts of the body working together. I was very blessed to find that Katherine Bushnell made some of the same connections between various passages that I had made (and never seen anywhere else) and I bought myself 2 copies of her book one for myself and one to share (Her book is available free online click here). I resonate with her literalist “fundamentalist” approach to scriptures.
iconoclast,
I love your handle 🙂
I do think that a form of idolatry is at the root of this doctrinal error- for both the men and women who are ensnared in it 🙁
I consider myself to be a repentant husband idolater.
I consider myself to be a repentant husband idolater.
Me too, in that I thought he was a mediator between God and me. I put him in that place because I thought God told me to, though, so I’m not sure if it’s true idolatry…more like, well-intentioned idolatry.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Piper has answered Adrian’s question: Wright is not preaching another gospel
Charis, thanks for explaining what you mean by your “fundamentalist hermeneutics”. It is good, but it is not what I have called “fundamentalist”. For you brought in a proper logical argument for your conclusion
I do not see that kind of argument in the works of Grudem and associates, only assertions about the verses they choose to rely on and unexplained dismissals of apparently contradictory verses.
But some might argue that you are letting your presuppositions show when you write
Do you have any logical or Scriptural reason for holding this premise? It is one which I agree with, but if you are holding it arbitrarily you are indeed taking a fundamentalist approach.
The quote from Grudem above is from page 91 and 92 of Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood. It is available on the internet through google books. He also writes, on page 33 about teshuqah,
I have previously argued elsewhere that a positive kind of “desire to conquer” could be understood in Song 7:10, whereby it indicates the man’s desire to have a kind of influence over his beloved that is appropriate to initiating and consummating the sexual relationship, an influence such that she would receive and yield to his amorous advances. This sense would be represented by the paraphrase, “His desire is to have me yield to him.”
Grudem is saying that he no longer holds these views, but I am extremely shocked that any adult Christian male ever thought that it would be appropriate to publish views like this.
The scriptures are clear that in the sexual relationship there is full and general mutuality. How completely unscriptural can this get?
Although I don’t know what book this was originally published in, I am also unaware of any books by Grudem that have been deliberately taken out of circulation. In my mind, they all should be.
I have to correct something here. The quote from pages 91 and 92 are from Bruce Ware. Grudem is the editor. I would have to say that from what else I have read by Ware he really outdoes Grudem.
Page 33 is written by Grudem.
Bruce Ware is the author of the foudnational resource of CBMW. Here is a quote from Ware.
Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. Gen. 1:26-27 makes clear that male and female are equally created as God’s image, and so are, by God’s created design, equally and fully human. But, as Gen. 2 bears out (as seen in its own context and as understood by Paul in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2), their humanity would find expression differently, in a relationship of complementarity, with the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male.
So women were made for submissive assistance and the male for authority. That is called equality. Excuse me!
TBH, My conviction that nothing in God’s Word is intended to put down, demean, nor disrespect women is rooted far more in my experience of God, my relationship with God than in “logic”. I KNOW His love for me, His respect, His cherishing, His understanding, His nourishing. I KNOW all of it because I can feel all of it. (see Eph 3:16-19)
As far as logical biblical evidence of how God views me- I could get really long winded… but, I’ll keep it simple and refer you to this link:Father’s Love Letter composed of verses right from God’s mouth to my eyes and ears and eventually to my heart.
Paradoxically, I believe the very intent of each of those passages cited above has been twisted to mean nearly the polar opposite of what Paul was really preaching. I understand each of those passages as messages of hope, liberty, redemption, and restoration for God’s beloved daughters- then AND now! I am a wife who arrived at my understanding of those passages with a Bible, word study tools, and prayer.
eg. 1 Tim. 2
I thought I could see what it is saying… but????
Who am I? What do I know?
and then I read this from Katherine Bushnell who could see it too:
see #791 at this link
and 342-44 at this link
Charis, thanks for writing this. Yes, I know this too, and because of that I cannot accept that God will demean women or men. So you are going beyond Sola Scriptura to argue from experience. The problem is that it is impossible to convince others with this kind of subjective argument.
It would clarify things if for example Grudem declared openly that his complementarian position is based on his personal experience of God, or perhaps on tradition, and not on Sola Scriptura.
Suzanne, are you saying that it is the same Bruce Ware who wrote both of these contradictory statements?
Either the female is created as God’s image, or she becomes it “through the male”. You can’t have both.
I do think it is the same person. This would be available through google. I think he means that Eve came into being through Adam, so, according to Ware, she received her being in the image of God through Adam.
However, to then go from there to saying that in a group of young single men and women, the young women should defer to the young men and honour them because the women have become in the image of God through men just sounds downright terrible, like a male cult.
I don’t really consider it my job nor my calling to convince others. (It sure doesn’t work in my marriage!)… I have a testimony of my experience with God and things I have learned from His Word and I hang onto this:
Rev 12:10b-11
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony
and this:
2 Tim 2:24And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
and of course 1 Peter 3 in my marriage 🙂
But, Peter, You go for it brother!!! Maybe you are called? I think for men who have a low view of women, that the message cannot come from a woman. They won’t receive teaching nor correction from a woman.
Suzanne, if what Ware means is that Eve was formed from Adam, of course that is uncontroversial. But the conclusions he seemed to be drawing from that were so far from logical that I thought he was trying to say something like that a woman today becomes the image of God only through her husband, which is of course truly heretical.
Charis, thanks for your testimony. I agree with the power of testimony, which is really important for many people. But many, perhaps especially men (for cultural reasons), need logical arguments as well as testimony to be convinced. I hope to offer both.
If logical arguments worked, there would be able no forbidding of females based on Paul’s own usage of the term “husband of one wife”. One cannot make a RULE from Paul’s words where Paul himself has EXCEPTIONs. IF there is even ONE exception, THEN there is no rule! Is that not logical? See what I mean? Logic doesn’t work.
I read this yesterday. Man does it barbeque a couple more SACRED COWS!
367-368
and it is logical, dontcha think?
see what I mean?
logic doesn’t work.
Charis, thanks for the link. I appreciate the arguments here.
But what has this author got against divers? They need weights to get underwater. Why are these weights banned in Scripture?
Or to put it another way, why are you preaching to me in 17th century English?
LOL 😀
IRRC that would be entirely 20th century material since she started writing the lessons @ 1906 🙂
MAYBE she used a King James Bible-?
I like the fact that the book is older. She can’t be accused of being a “radical feminist bra burning liberal” . She has incredible insight that I’ve never seen anywhere else, and remarkable as it may seem to you, Peter, I find her writing far more simple, intelligible, and Biblical than those who sit in their ivory tower writing things which undermine the authority of scripture (which I’ve seen from BOTH sides of this debate BTW!)
Today I decded I might be of some service to my sisters in Christ by initiating a blog to study and reflect upon her material
godswordtowomen.wordpress.com
its set on “private” at the moment till I can get some material posted
and I don’t mind loneliness.
I got a little intimidated by the spike in hits on my Bible Study blog after Molly quoted me (yikes!)
course I assume when we are on comment 60-something here that there is a very tiny audience (if any)- which I prefer… so SHHHH Peter, its between you and me for the moment man!
If I may keep on talking with you two – I think Ware means something in between, that since woman was made from man, therefore women owe men deference and honour that men don’t owe women. I think this the gist of Grudem’s frequent insistence that there is a difference in priority, honour, prominence and order between men and women.
It seem pretty self seeking to me.
Charis,
I have noticed that both Katherine Bushnell and Catherine Booth were deeply involved in the purity movement. That is why they wanted to preach. I am totally with you on this. I have read some of Bushnell and I don’t think my arguments are much different from hers.
What is really striking is that the true Christian women has a desire to teach and preach and she is deeply committed to sexual purity. Her calling from God is to save other women from a life of impurity as the slave or victim of immoral men.
I would like to blog about four Christian women who believed in women preaching. Margaret Fell – 17th century, Elizabeth Fry – 18th century, Catherine Booth – 19th century, and Katherine Bushnell – 20th century.
Maybe you would also like to see the first Anglican woman priest – Florence Li Tim Oi.
No, women who want to serve God by preaching are not, for the most part, liberal bra-burning feminists. And I am not either LOL. And especially not here , but not ever. Teehee.
Peter, Thanks again for posting bravely on an important issue.
Charis, Thanks for commenting, knowing some of us are listening in to your important conversations.
Suzanne, I look forward to your post(s) on Margaret Fell – 17th century, Elizabeth Fry – 18th century, Catherine Booth – 19th century, and Katherine Bushnell – 20th century. If you dare add a 21st century preacher, would you consider Anne Graham Lotz? She has a well stated article, “Bible Crystal Clear on Male-Female, Equality” (in Washingtonpost.com/Newsweek) in which she takes the approach of William Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals on how God, through the scriptures, through history, has worked to gradually improve the plight and positions of women.
Just the little bit you posted about them is interesting Suzanne.
I think the church is reaping the bitter harvest of such preaching (on sexual purity) being quenched- in the form of rampant porn use among Christian men and a divorce rate no different than the world.
I too will look forward to reading the series of posts you have planned.
These are some I have written. I probably won’t add to it right away.
Catherine Booth Resources
Catherine Booth: Adaption of Measures
Feminists of the 1800’s
Margaret Fell
But, Peter, You go for it brother!!! Maybe you are called? I think for men who have a low view of women, that the message cannot come from a woman. They won’t receive teaching nor correction from a woman.
I agree and so appreciate you, Peter. I think men have no clue just how much power they have over the opinions of other men. A complementarian man is trained NOT to hear theological arguments from women, period. They are trained to EXPECT women to want to rebel against their place (by their interpretation of Gen. 3:16, which they read to say, “Your husband will continue to rule over you, but now you will always want to usurp his rightful rule).”
It is all really very sad, but the fact is, there is very little women can do in the situation other than to step up in their own personal lives and politely refuse to play the game anymore.
When it comes to changing the general mindset, it’s still very much the men who have the power.
So…thanks for using yours the way you are. 🙂
Oooh, Suzanne, I”m looking forward to that series. 🙂
Charis, I am sure the material you are quoting is very valuable. I haven’t read enough to make my own judgment. Part of the problem is that I live and work in a world (and to some extent in a church) in which only the latest things are valued. I see good reasons for that in some areas, but also good reasons not to despise older materials.
Don’t count on there being very few readers of this. There were 30 hits on this post yesterday, four days after it was posted, suggesting that people are tracking new comments.
Molly, I’m not sure most comps will listen to me either. I am single (remember what Mark Driscoll had to say about that), I am not ordained (although I am theologically trained to MA level), I am not a TULIP Calvinist, and I dare to defend Steve Chalke. So they probably assume I am reprobate (that is, I am going to hell) and consider it their mission to refute me. Well, not all comps think like that, but many vocal ones do.
Yes, that “supposedly” is putting it rather tendentiously. That’s in fact a gross understatement. I’d prefer to call it misrepresentation. The complementarian view is actually that men and women are equal in status, not that men and women are supposedly equal in status. Even in indirect discourse, it’s important to say that the view people hold is the view they hold rather than the view you would prefer them to hold because it’s easier to shoot down.
all of the roles in the church and the family which are generally considered to be of high status are reserved for men only
And that, of course, is simply false rather than tendentious. The highest gift is clearly prophecy, and no one limits that according to gender. It’s hard to see how anyone could attribute the view you describe to someone like Wayne Grudem, who is very clear on this point no matter what his other problems might be. The second gift is teaching, and hardly anyone limits that just to men even if most (but not all, e.g. Blomberg) complementarians limit it to certain contexts.
I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve lost sight of what you had intended when you changed your blog name to Gentle Wisdom.
My “supposedly” was intended to mean that this was the complementarian position, not my own. Perhaps this is a difference between British and American English.
As for your accusation that I have said something “simply false”, that is simply false. Prophecy is indeed described as one of the highest gifts, but not as the highest role. In 1 Corinthians 12:28 the role of being a prophet is clearly put second to that of being an apostle. Of course many comps do not allow anyone to be a prophet today. But which comps allow women to exercise the gift of prophecy in a church setting? As for teaching, some comps may allow women to teach other women and children, but that is clearly “generally considered” to be a lower status role than teaching a mixed congregation.
Jeremy, maybe I am not being as gentle as I could be, but I am not going to abandon wisdom for the folly of believing the comps’ insistence that women have equal status while denying them every possibility of expressing that equal status. That is not equality, it is oppression, it is Animal Farm “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” double-speak.
Jeremy,
Women are definitely equal and unequal in the comp view, they are equal is essence and unequal in function, as submissive assistants.
A black is equal is essence, created with equal intellect and judgment, but if he is enslaved then he is unequal in function. And so is woman. If she is subordinated, she is unequal in function.
And curiously that is important to some people. Being enslaved or subordinated does not tickle their fancy. You can read here how disturbing it is to some of us. Revolting actually.
The truth is that some comps don’t treat their wives that way, I have always accepted that. I am convinced that sometimes in complementarian marriages, the wife is the stronger individual. I have always agreed with that. Sometimes, people just behave with common sense. But the teaching is explicit that the wife is not equal in the marriage nor in the church.
So, just because some complementarians are decent and respectable people who could teach others a thing or two, does not mean that it is right for a man to treat his wife like a submissive assistant.
My understanding of how “that” works in indirect discourse is that what follows the “that” is something the person would say. What complementarians say is that men and women have equality of nature and difference in roles. I would accept it as a fair description if you said the following:
“Complementarians say that men and women have equality of nature, but their view of difference in roles reveals that this supposed equality of nature is really unequal.” I’d disagree, but I would accuse you of putting the questionable element within your description of what the complementarian says. But if you put it within the “that” clause, it seems to me to be exactly what the complementarian wouldn’t agree to.
You’re right that apostleship is treated as higher than even prophecy. I don’t know if Adrian and Grudem think apostleship in that sense still occurs. If they do, and I’m sure they would say women don’t have that gift in that sense, then there is one gift that they don’t think women have that is clearly in first place above the others.
But what you said is stronger than this and is not supported by this point. You said “all of the roles in the church and family which are generally considered to be of high status”. I find it hard to believe that you don’t think teaching and prophecy are considered to be of high status. Is the highest status the only one that counts as being of high status? It’s true that being an elder, preaching, and being head of a household are often viewed as the highest status, but here’s a whole list of things that might have high status without being the highest status: being in authority over one’s children, managing many daily tasks for a home and making important decisions without constant permission from a husband, teaching a women’s Bible study group, teaching Sunday School, serving as a deacon, being a missionary (even if it’s restricted to mainly women), teaching in seminary (which a number of complementarians do allow, at least with certain classes, and many allow it with any class).
I’ll tell you which complementarians would allow women to exercise prophecy in a church setting: Wayne Grudem, D.A. Carson, and Craig Blomberg, three people who end up with different views on a number of other matters related to these issues. Blomberg would allow women to preach under a head elder’s authority. Carson wouldn’t, but he has no problem with prophecies that are then evaluated as prophecies are supposed to be evaluated (whether a man or woman is giving them). Apparently this actually went on when he was a pastor, judging by what he says in his book on the matter. On this issue, Grudem’s view seems to me to be exactly the same as Carson’s, except that he may be a little more open to gifts of prophecy in actual cases than Carson’s “open but cautious” stance (although Carson’s “open but cautious” at least involves a history of pastoring a church where tongues and prophecy did take place in public, as opposed to, say, Piper’s “open but cautious” stance in a church where that probably hasn’t occurred).
I’m not complaining about your view or the argument you present in your final paragraph of the last comment. I disagree, but that’s not my target. My target is in your presentation of what complementarians affirm. The first point is a matter of word placement and isn’t as significant. The second point seems to me to be a serious misrepresentation of the complementarian position, one that egalitarians regularly commit.
Yes, Jeremy, looking again at the sentence “supposedly” was redundant. I think originally the “that” was after the clause containing “supposedly”, and I partly but not very expertly rearranged the sentence. Is this matter of wording your main problem with my post?
Adrian certainly believes in apostleship today, but only for men. As most churches in fact don’t recognise apostles or prophets as formal offices, they do not count among those “generally considered” to be high status or of any status at all. Those “generally considered to be of high status” are those of pastor, teacher and elder – and I exclude teachers of children at church, who are “generally considered” of rather low status, at least in my experience. Now it may be that God’s evaluation of these people’s status is not the same as how they are “generally considered” in the church, but I was writing about the latter. Meanwhile I don’t think anyone considers “being in authority over one’s children, managing many daily tasks for a home” to be of high status. As for “making important decisions without constant permission from a husband, … teaching Sunday School, serving as a deacon, being a missionary …, teaching in seminary”, these are activities which many comps allow women to do either not at all or only with severe restrictions. This leaves “teaching a women’s Bible study group” as the only activity open to women which can even remotely be considered high status, but is still of clearly lower status than teaching mixed groups. In other words, every church-related activity fully open to women is systematically of lower status, as “generally considered”, than activities open only to men.
As for allowing women to preach or prophesy under the authority and judgment of a male only head pastor, that is a clear case of the woman having the lower status than a man and so upholds my point. Even if Paul taught that the prophet has a higher status than the pastor (which is debatable), Carson and Fee obviously don’t agree with this in their rules for practical church life.
“Now scholarship alone did not reveal the meaning to you, nor did experience alone, but a combination of the two.” Katharine Bushnell
Rather than posting a longer quote in early 20th century English (you seemed to dislike reading) I will just tell you that I read some more of Katherine Bushnell which really resonated with me and I posted it here: Scholarship AND Experience
Jeremy,
It seems to me that one could only say, “equal in being, unequal in function” if the person’s function was an optional one. Such as a slave: their function was subservient, but that was merely because they were born as a slave or captured as one, NOT because they are, in essence, a slave.
A police officer would be another example of an optional function. The person went to police academy, etc, and has the “role” of a police officer. This is a function—one that he/she takes on and then takes off.
But a woman does not take on or take off her womanhood. She does not choose it, nor does she have an option (no such thing as an, “I think I’ll be a woman today, but tomorrow I will take a day off.”).
A woman is a woman by essence of her *being.* Femaleness is not a function nor is it a role, it is part of who women are.
But according to comp teaching, womanhood in its essence is subordinate, is unequal to manhood.
Therefore, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the comp camp is teaching that woman is unequal in her function AND her being.
Charis, thanks for the Bushnell quote. I like that combination of scholarship and experience.
I have no objection to early 20th century English, just to 17th century English incorporated into 20th century texts.
Molly, thanks for saying the same as I just said in a comment on the other current thread. Jeremy, I hope you have read that one.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Justification: metaphor or the real thing?
For one thing, being subordinate in one sense, even if one has no choice about it, does not mean being unequal ontologically. The slave example demonstrates this. Slaves have a subordinate status without being ontologically inferior. There’s nothing unequal in the nature of a slave and a master. It’s an unequal set of roles. So not having a choice about it is irrelevant. Some slaves in the ancient world voluntarily sold themselves into slavery, and some even retained the status deliberately once their period was up. But lots of slaves have been forced into servitude, and it doesn’t reflect any ontological difference. So why should it reflect an ontological difference for God to declare that women will take on different roles than men? This is so even if the general view of which roles are important happens to pick the ones men are doing as the important ones, despite the Bible’s insistence otherwise.
Slaves are not ontologically different from free people because there is the possibility of them becoming free. Women are ontologically different from men because there is no possibility of them becoming men. So the subordination of slaves to masters is not ontological, but the subordination which you preach, Jeremy, of women to men is ontological.
Where does the Bible insist that the roles allowed for men are not more important than the roles you claim are only allowed for women?
Ontological means based on nature. A declaration of God not based on nature is not ontological, regardless of whether it’s possible for God to revoke that declaration. (I see no reason why it wouldn’t be possible for God to revoke a declaration not based on nature, so in this case it’s even less a case of ontology.)
The Bible insists that every member of the body of Christ is equally important and should be treated as equal. It also insists that men and women are ontologically equivalent as members of the body of Christ in Gal 3:28, just as slave and free are and Jew and Greek are, and in no way does this amount to denying that there are differences in any of these categories. They’re just not ontological differences or differences with respect to salvation or importance to God and to the gospel.
Jeremy, as far as I am concerned a difference between two entities which is deliberately planned, true from the very creation of the entities, and irreversible is a difference of nature. Or to put it another way, if “men and women are ontologically equivalent as members of the body of Christ in Gal 3:28”, that implies that the differences between them are accidental or contingent and so in principle reversible. In other words, if there is no difference in nature between a man and a woman, there is no reason why a suitably qualified woman cannot take a leadership position in the family or the church.
I accept that it’s accidental, contingent, and reversible. I reject that we can go against God’s commands and decide for ourselves to reverse it. That’s at God’s discretion, and I don’t accept that he has done so. To call something ontological is to take it to be part of the being of the person or thing in question. That is a view that some complementarians hold, but it needs to be distinguished from the view that I and other complementarians hold, which is a non-ontological view. Actual universality is not the same thing as necessity. Necessity means it’s true in all possible worlds. Actual universality just means it’s true in the actual world. This is a fundamental metaphysical distinction. The view D.A. Carson and others have defended is that these role differences are true in this world but didn’t have to be, even if God had created us exactly the way he did. That, by definition, is a claim that gender role differences are not ontological. It is a complete misuse of the term ‘ontological’ to ascribe it to this view. You may still differ with the view on moral grounds, but it’s linguistically inaccurate to use the term ‘ontological’ in doing so.
Well, Jeremy, it was you who introduced the term “ontological” into this discussion. And when I continued to use it, it was in the context that women cannot become men, which is clearly true because of their differences in sexual organs, genetic makeup etc. I assume here that you would not accept that a woman who had in some sense become a man through a surgical procedure would thereby be a man for the purpose of gender roles in family and church. On this assumption, there is a difference of nature, an ontological difference, between men and women, although this does not affect their standing in Christ as we would both agree.
Now I would agree with you and Carson, but not with some other complementarians, in rejecting the view that this genetic and sexual difference implies that women are incapable of acting as leaders, as an essential part of their natures. I understand your position that God has arbitrarily commanded that women should not take certain roles. It is God’s right to make such a command, just as he arbitrarily commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. So my dispute with you and Carson is over whether God has actually made such a command. I do not believe that he has, and this should be clear from correct exegesis of the Bible passages which you and Carson probably appeal to.
Part of the problem is that people might mean a lot of different things when they call something ontological, and we might slip from one to another in the midst of a discussion. Some people are ontologically different in being taller or darker than others. That is ontological in one important sense. It doesn’t seem morally ok to base differences in treatment on such differences except when that difference is relevant. If I need to hire a tall person for a task requiring the person to be tall, then it’s ok. If I’m staging a play and want someone to play a black character, skin color is then important.
There are different kinds of views basing gender role differences in ontological differences. One attributes ontological differences on the level of moral importance. One group is better than another in some sense or is morally superior in some way. Complementarians and egalitarians alike consider such a view immoral. Egalitarian complaints often treat complementarians as saying this, however, or at least as saying something that implies it.
Another view bases moral differences in morally irrelevant ontological differences that are nonetheless real. So the fact that women give birth and are better nurturers on average, but that fact doesn’t imply that women ought not to work outside the home. Those who think it does have made a mistake, and it’s one that is morally blameworthy. Some complementarians do hold such a view, and I disagree with it, but many complementarians do, including Grudem and Piper.
A third view, Carson’s view, doesn’t ground those roles in those ontological differences at all except insofar as those differences do sometimes justify different treatment (e.g. since women are capable of being pregnant, and you often don’t know if they are, it often makes sense to treat women with more care than men, and since women are often physically weaker than men anyway such treatment often makes sense; a completely different example might be separate public restrooms for the sake of modesty).
But this third view does do something that you are (I think misleadingly) calling an ontological basis for gender role differences. It involves an arbitrary choice of one of the two ontologically-different sexes as having certain roles and the other as having both. It insists that neither set of roles is better than the other, and it does not ground the choice of which one gets which roles in ontology. Where ontology enters is merely that the two groups are ontologically real. There are ontological differences between men and women. I just don’t see how that means the basis of gender roles is ontological on this view. The basis is arbitrary. The only thing ontological, on this view, is that what makes you male or female is real.
Technically, there’s a fourth view, that of Scott Baugh. He holds that the choice is arbitrary but that God then built certain characteristics into men’s and women’s natures, at least in terms of general tendencies, and those characteristics serve to support the differences in roles. But the choice on God’s part is still arbitrary on Baugh’s view. That view has slightly more claim to counting as having an ontological difference justifying the different roles, but it doesn’t have an ontological difference as the real explanation for why each sex is given roles.
My point was basically that when you speak of complementarians as having an ontological difference grounding those roles, you can mean different things. It often sounds as if you’re attributing the first view to complementarians, which would be inaccurate. It also sounds as if you might be taking all complementarians to hold the second view, when some hold the third or fourth. What complementarians all deny when they say that gender role differences aren’t ontological is the first. You gave an argument against that claim by insisting that there’s something ontological even with view three but even more so with view two. All I was saying is that such claims are at best misleading, and depending on what is meant perhaps not even accurate.
Some complementarians imply that men should take leadership roles because they are morally superior to women. I am glad that that is not your view, but it is a view which cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, I accept that many complementarians hold your third view. But I dispute your claim that none hold your first view, at least as one element of their thinking.
This in my view is the fundamental immorality, the fundamental lie of complementarianism. Everyone knows instinctively that leadership and teaching roles are in some sense “better” than other roles. This is one of our cultural presuppositions, but it is one which is upheld in the Bible, which teaches explicitly, in 1 Timothy 3:1 (church leadership), James 3:1 (teaching), 1 Corinthians 14:5 (prophecy in the church assembly) etc, that such roles are good and should be aspired to. But what has happened is that some men have decided to restrict these roles to themselves and restrict women to roles which are generally considered to be of lower status – and have then tried to justify this by redefining generally understood notions of status, in a way which fools absolutely no one, except apparently you, Jeremy. I’m sorry, leadership has not suddenly lost its high status because Grudem, Piper etc say so, especially when the apostle Paul says the opposite.
I’m disappointed that I haven’t been following this discussion…
Some complementarians imply that men should take leadership roles because they are morally superior to women.
The way complementarianism has always defined itself, this view is not complementarianism. This is in fact the view that the people who first used the term were trying to distance themselves from.
I dispute your claim that the Bible takes these roles as better. It does say that it is better to pursue certain gifts. It does say that there are certain tasks that it is better to seek to do. Being a good person, achieving good things is better than not being good or doing good. What the Bible specifically denies is that playing one role rather than another makes someone better. The whole point of I Corinthians 12 is to show how each part of the body is indispensable. There are parts we treat with less honor, but we are wrong to do so.
I know you take the “first” in v.28 as a hierarchy of importance in terms of status, but I cannot see that interpretation as fitting with the main point of the chapter (or with the spirit of egalitarianism, which is that these things shouldn’t matter). Paul’s point is the denial of that claim. It might be that certain gifts have a more noticeable impact, and it’s worth pursuing them in the sense of making oneself available to God should he choose to distribute those gifts to us (after all, why seek to limit God?), but that doesn’t mean there’s any sense of someone’s being better for having them, and it doesn’t mean any particular sets of gifts and ministry tasks for using those gifts is better for me than another except insofar as it fits with God’s plan. Seeing gifts or tasks as rewards that God gives to the best people is contrary to the whole point here, but that’s the only way I can see this frustration you show with the idea that it’s wrong to give certain people “lesser” gifts or tasks, as if anyone deserves these at all and as if we should see people as better for receiving some and not others.
Jeremy, see also the further discussion at Complegalitarian. I would like to encourage you to continue the discussion there, where the discussion is more than just between you and me. For that reason I am reposting and replying to your last comment there. I hope that’s OK.
Pingback: Suzanne: “after 30 years of silence I am still processing…” « the Hope of His Calling
Pingback: Molly: “When I left patriarchy…” « the Hope of His Calling
Pingback: The fundamental lie of complementarianism? « Complegalitarian
Pingback: Complementarianism: Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditio? « Complegalitarian
I know this is an old thread but I just ran across it.
Bruce Ware, as was mentioned here, has written and continues to teach that woman derives the image of God through man (in the first place) and that the image of God is passed down genetically through the male sperm, so that all humans receive the image of God through man (not woman).
I know it isn’t chic to contradict Bruce Ware in a lot of American evangelical circles (especially the “young, restless & reformed” ones of which I’m apart) but this seems to be one of the worst bits of false doctrine I’ve seen embraced or ignored in the evangelical community.
Do you know of anyone who is credibly able to thoroughly refute Ware on these points who has done so?
Well, EMBG, I think the author of Genesis credibly refuted this one, in 1:27 which clearly states that females as well as males were the image of God by creation, not by genetic inheritance. Would Ware argue that Eve was not the image of God? But she did not come into being through male sperm. Nor did Jesus, so this teaching has the interesting and very worrying corollary that Jesus in his humanity is not in the image of God. Indeed “one of the worst bits of false doctrine I’ve seen embraced … in the evangelical community”. But I can’t put my finger on any detailed refutation.
Thanks, Peter.
From Ware’s paper on the subject, he argues that our first mother, Eve, received the image of God from Adam and so she (and other women after her) possess it in a derived fashion.
He doesn’t explicitly say “derived” equals “lesser” but that is what his paper goes on to imply since he uses it as an argument for the male authority and female submissive “roles.”
What is interested is that he says that women and men equally bear the image of God rather than that men and women bear the image of God equally. While that may be a semantic distinction for some, I don’t think it is for Ware.
If he were just a kook out there advocating such awful theology, who would care? But this is a man who trains pastors, leads a major seminary and has an extremely deep influence in the evangelical community (at least in America). Yet he’s not called out substantively for such gross distortions of Scripture. Since becoming aware that he’s written this and goes around the country teaching it, I’ve never seen a scholarly response to him on this topic – such as what goes back and forth between Wright and Piper over justification.
I was inquiring in case I missed it, so thanks for your response and blessings to you and yours!