This is the fourth post in Mark Baddeley’s series on complementarianism and egalitarianism. (Read parts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.)
We see a sign of this incompatibility of the two positions of egalitarianism and complementarianism in a recent post on the Ugley Vicar’s blog. He reports a conversation where a prospective ordination candidate in the Church of England was informed that they could not be ordained if they did not agree with women bishops. This was hardly a surprise to me, I have heard similar reports back in Australia coming from dioceses that were seeking to have women bishops (and I’m hardly Mr Networker). What this suggests is that usually, if not in absolutely every instance, when a diocese or denomination is close to having the political numbers to introduce women bishops, it makes support for women being bishops a requirement for ordination. Complementarians are henceforth excluded from that structure—first of all from the clergy and, eventually, from the laity as laypeople eventually find it impossible to find a church where complementarianism is not treated as a form of sin. Only those complementarians prepared to submit to a woman bishop’s authority and, one suspects, not be too vocal about their view that their bishop is sinning by being a bishop in the first place, can be ordained once women bishops are set up.
When that happens, complementarians need to understand that they will get no sympathy from convinced egalitarian evangelicals, whatever promises and assurances were given in the early stages of the process when the fight was over ordaining women. Two examples from this year are worth reflecting upon.
When the issue of women bishops came up in the Church of England again this year, Reform—a conservative evangelical group in the Church of England—released a statement saying that if women bishops go ahead without provisions for opponents, then conservative evangelicals will end up leaving. They mightn’t go en masse, but the ordinands they send each year would go elsewhere, and the money raised would probably be earmarked elsewhere.
Peter Kirk, an egalitarian evangelical, on his blog said in response to Reform’s statement that the likely outcome of introducing women bishops is that conservative evangelicals will end up leaving and setting up a new structure for gospel work. He made it clear that he thought that was a good outcome for the Church of England, and then discussed what the real danger is if/when evangelicals who oppose women’s ordination leave:
… the danger is that many more, perhaps the majority of its [the Church of England’s] evangelicals, might decide that the new structures are more supportive of them than the old ones are.
The danger he sees is not that complementarian evangelicals would be pushed out of the Church of England. The danger is that, having been pushed out, they might set up a new structure that is more attractive to evangelicals than the CoE. In other words, the best-case scenario, from an evangelical egalitarian perspective, is that complementarians be pushed out and fail to set up anything worthwhile. That is, he’s hoping that complementarians are left with nothing, or at least nothing that anyone else might seriously want. And so his advice to the Church of England regarding the letter from Reform is blunt:
But a better response is no response at all … In this way there is a future ahead for the Church of England in which, in retrospect, it has lost a few troublesome extremists and gained new strength and unity as well as the benefits of women as well as men in its top leadership.
Let the troublesome extremists go, and embrace the unity that comes from losing them, and the strength that comes from having women in its top leadership. It’s win-win for the evangelical egalitarians if the evangelical complementarians leave.
In other words, when women bishops are about to be introduced egalitarian evangelicals who strongly support women’s ordination shed no tears at the thought of their complementarian fellow-evangelicals leaving (either voluntarily as an expression of their disagreement, or being forced out because they won’t submit to a woman’s authority). For egalitarians, as I suggested in the previous post, and we will discuss in more detail in the future, women’s ordination is a ‘gospel issue’—and so implementing it fully is more important than keeping on side people who believe in justification by grace through faith but oppose women having authority over men. When push comes to shove they will generally conclude that the church is better off without evangelicals who practice a kind of gender-based apartheid. Justification by faith is less central to the egalitarian gospel than eliminating oppression.
Does that assessment seem too over-the-top? Then consider the other example from this year. As the key vote came up in the Church of England synod to pass legislation enabling women bishops, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York took a fairly unprecedented step and personally proposed an amendment to the legislation that would give some protection for the consciences of complementarians. Among the usual suspects of voices that publicly opposed the Archbishops’ proposal was the most well known egalitarian evangelical body, Fulcrum. It was a surprising move by Fulcrum, perhaps the only time that it has, even by inference, criticized Rowan Williams; far more commonly it defends his actions (or lack of actions) against evangelical critiques. Yet, so important was introducing women bishops with no provisions for protecting the consciences of fellow evangelicals, that Fulcrum did something almost unprecedented—it publicly broke ranks with Rowan Williams, senior bishop of the Church of England.
As it turned out, the amendment failed to win sufficient support—by just a handful of votes in the house of clergy. It is worth considering whether support by Fulcrum for the amendments might have moved a couple of votes and so preserved a place for fellow evangelicals to work with them in the institution in the cause of the gospel. But it is also worth recognizing that this is not some anomaly. By Australian standards, English Christians bend over backwards to work together despite deep disagreements. If even English egalitarian evangelicals find it tough to swallow compromise, one needs to realize that, however nice that egalitarian you personally know is, the movement as a whole will find it hard to be any more charitable with their opposition than the English have been (and I really mean that—after three years here, the English Christians are charitable to a fault). If even the Church of England can’t find a way not to force out complementarians, we should expect separation to take place whenever egalitarianism is endorsed by an institution. It won’t happen in absolutely every instance—some Christians will prefer compromise to forcing the issue—but we should recognize that that will be the exception, not the rule, at least over the long term. Compromises of this nature involves the winning group to allow what they consider to be genuine wrong to be practiced within the institution, and that is always difficult (as it should be) among Christians.
Thanks for this, Mark. Very instructive!
Let me ask a question (as a complemantarian myself, but not in an Anglican church): is the reverse of this also true?
That is, that maintaining (or regaining) a complementarian denominational structure will tend to ‘force out’ egalitarian evangelicals? I tend to thnk not, but that may be because of my commitments …
Mark, did you not have any examples of egals being pushed out, or did you feel it important to only give examples from one side? Was there a reason for doing this? If you would like some examples of the other side of the coin I would be happy to give you some links!
I guess I cannot help but feel that the comps are running this series of posts. I hope I will not be asked to leave!
Has this been an issue in Melbourne or Perth yet – which have female bishops?
There are groups in the US that make comp doctrine a plank in their faith statements, so this becomes a “no egals wanted” statement.
What is happening is that comp churches are studying the issue and moving in the egal direction and this concerns the remaining comps as it indicates to any observer that they may be wrong.
Hello Chris,
Welcome along. Glad you found this post instructive, and you’re welcome for it.
As I’ve tried to argue in the comments in earlier threads it can happen but it’ll do so differently.
My view is that, unless complementarian structures make believing in some kind of complementarianism an item of faith, egalitarians can continue to exist in a complementarian institution.
Complementarianism as a practice ‘merely’ restricts egalitarian women from serving as fully as they think they should (and that’s not intended to say it isn’t a big deal for them).
But egalitarianism as a practice sooner or later requires complementarians to actively do something they think is wrong – be under the authority of a woman. (And that’ll always be a problem for men, and might be for some women who might have problems with being under the authority of a woman who is exercising authority over men).
Now, what I think is beginning to happen is that some complementarian structures are beginning to make believing in complementarianism an item of faith required to stay in the institution. And you can see Don and Dave in their comments under yours wanting to get that on the table.
But that’s actually a significant change occuring for complementarians. It’s a break with ‘tradition’.
It’s similar to the Reformation. Egalitarians are the Reformers – trying to reform the existing complementarian institutions, and able to function and agitate for further change along their lines. And they can keep doing that as long as they play within complementarian practical limitations and as long as they don’t have to say complementarianism is right.
Complementarians are the Catholic Church. They have the early institutional power, but they have a practice for which there is no confession of faith supporting it. And so, over time, they lose some institutions to the reformers who live in the structure until they persuade enough people to change it.
All that’s fine, that’s just life.
The only way that complementarianism can stop that, let alone try and take ground back, is to do its own Council of Trent – start to articulate its position theologically and make that part of the basis of staying part of the institution. And that will probably change complementarianism about as much as the difference between Tridentine and Medieval Catholicism.
So, yeah I think it will happen on both sides, but a bit less on the complementarian side, because doing that involves a change to a side whose self-identity is that it is with tradition on this point, and involves deliberately shutting out evangelicals that many/most they consider brothers and sisters just on a bad track.
Whereas egalitarians aren’t deliberately shutting out complementarians – they’re doing something fundamentally positive: making sure women are fully equal. The fact that complementarians then leave is a side effect, it wasn’t the goal. So it’s a bit harder for them to compromise, I think, then it is for complementarians to choose not to go down the route of deliberately ‘closing the door’ on egalitarians they know and love and often hold in esteem.
And again, none of that is necessarily bad or good.
Hi Dave,
Yes, I’m a complementarian talking primarily to other complementarians trying to help them understand the changes I think are coming.
It wasn’t a ‘these guys are so mean’ kind of post. It was a “there’s stuff going on here that can’t be addressed just by good will and good personal relationships – people think that truth, justice and the gospel are at stake.”
It was aimed at the complementarians (the vast majority in my experience) who still seem to think that people pushing for women’s ordination (or women bishops) think only that women can hold those positions, not that they should.
Canvassing complementarian examples of raising the drawbridge wouldn’t get the point across. People would say, “Well sure those guys are nuts, but we don’t have to do that.”
I would love you to, Dave. It would nicely round out my thesis in ways I opted not to canvass in my posts.
Yes, one comp in particular. And the primary audience is other comps.
Frankly I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the engagement by egalitarians to this series (and aghast at the sheer volume). I’ve been restructuring the whole project on the hop in light of it to make the stuff next year less alienating for egals for as long as possible (given my views, that can’t be forever).
I suspect you’re going to absolutely hate the next series after this one. But hopefully it’ll get better next year.
But I’d love you to stick around as you are able. Just because I think separation is going to occur does not mean I want to speed it along here, just the opposite.
I wish egalitarian leaders hadn’t led the donkey up the minaret by seeing this issue on a par with slavery, another gospel, or denying the deity of Christ. I think it upped the stakes far higher than comps saying ‘ooh this is a slippery slope!’. But that’s a complementarian perspective. However he got there, the donkey is up the minaret and I doubt even a Vetinari can get him down now. We are likely to split structurally.
But let’s not make that the whole story eh? Especially those of us who don’t think this is quite that serious, and might see it more like the Reformed/Arminian debate in its import.
Hi Malcolm,
No idea. I have heard whispers that the conversation the Ugley Vicar describes has had parallels in at least one of the Dioceses you mention. But, as the post should indicate, it’s the situation in the CoE that’s crystalised my thinking, not so much in Oz.
If anyone else would be up to shedding some light one way or another, about those Dioceses and what I’ve narrated here, that would be a great contribution for us all, I think. Both present experience, likely future developments and reasons why would all be good.
Hi Don,
Yes, Acts 29 would be an example that many Sola readers would be familiar with.
And I agree, that’s how it functions.
Heh, glad I’m the only one not attempting to be fair in my description of the other side. Did you want to add that the remaining comps want to do this because they’re motivated by a deep desire to oppress women and an inability to cope with strong women and, like all bullies are fundamentally cowards, so they need safety in numbers to hide this from the light? I mean, why stop at speculating on just one motive?
Evangelicals have a long history of creating theological confessions to block entry to movements that they see former evangelicals departing into and that they think are fundamentally wrong. Liberalism is the most obvious contender, but Catholicism is there too. Possibly these complementarians think egalitarianism is both wrong and dangerous and so want to shut it out? If so, one could argue that strategy has good evangelical pedigree, even if one doesn’t want to copy it.
My point was that some groups want to declare that being comp is “settled doctrine” so that in those groups explorations of gender verses will be seen as grounds for exclusion, since it is a part of their faith statement. This is one way to address the concern of comp churches studying the issue and changing to become more egal.
I do not think comps want to oppress women or like being bullies; but I do think they have allowed themselves to be deceived in this area. We are all sinners and believers are redeemed sinners, but still sinners. We need to guard against the possibility of sin in anything we do, including especially interpreting the
Bible, as we then risk sanctifying our sin through our interpretation and sanctified sin can be very hard to repent from.
Mark you said, “I would love you to, Dave. It would nicely round out my thesis in ways I opted not to canvass in my posts.”
I could start, not with a link, though you might be able to find one yourself, but by pointing you at the Presbyterian Church in Australia and what happened last year and what happened in 1977. Obviously in 1977 half the Presbyterian Church split and formed the Uniting Church along with the Methodists and some Congregationalists. One could say that the comps stayed and the egals left (or were pushed?!, though that is an oversimplification.
Time has seen that there have been some egals who have remained but the ordination of women ministers was stopped soon after ‘union’. Last year some comps tried to stop the ordination of women elders because of Paul’s words to Timothy that suggest an elder should preach, and that ‘a woman’ should not teach or have ‘authority’ over a man. A clear case of the comps trying to push out the egals. It was a move that very much threatened to split the church.
The move was not successful even though at the NSW level at least a vote on egal v comp would show the comps winning. The reason it lost was purely because there were some ‘legal’ issues with the move in regards to our church laws. I hope this might be a start in helping to round out your thesis!
Interestingly my sources in Presbyterian Church suggest they are facing a similar Comp vs Egal struggle although arrayed very differently to the Anglican one. The overall structure of the Presbyterian Church in Australia is Comp, for example their new Moderator General is a staunch Comp, but some churches still have female elders (“elders for life” remember) and some ministers are Egal, a hold-over from a less conservative era. So for them, somewhat unusually, given the wider culture and their past history it’s Comp who are in the ascendancy.
Hi Don,
Yes, and my point was that that is entirely appropriate for evangelical churches. Justification by grace through faith alone, the Bible is the Word of God, Jesus is God and man, human beings are sinners who cannot save themselves, there is no vicar of Christ on earth – all are ‘settled doctrines’ and in many circles “exploring” those issues (i.e. beginning to fundamentally question them)can be grounds for exclusion.
Some creationists make YEC part of that, some Christians make not drinking alcohol part of that. I fail both of those tests. But I’m not going to say, “this concerns the remaining YECs/teetotalers as it indicates to any observer that they may be wrong.” I’ll just say, “They’ve got it wrong on this issue.” – either they should put the barrier on the other side of the debate, or there shouldn’t be a barrier at all on this question. I won’t go imputing murky motive to them.
Yes, and, with some words changed around this then read as a fairly standard complementarian statement of concern about egalitarianism. Take out ‘want to oppress women’ or ‘like being bullies’. Change it to ‘want to disobey the word of God’ and ‘like rejecting the responsibilities God assigned them’ and you’ve got the same concern fed back through the mirror.
So your counsel is appropriate for both sides of the debate. Sin might be deceiving egals, just as much as comps, in this whole debate.
Hi Dave (and Luke – thanks for the supplementary to Dave’s contribution)
Thanks for taking me up on that, Dave. Very helpful to get further input. The obvious third denomination in Oz that would be interesting to have insight into would be the Baptists. Last time I checked, the egals seemed to be making progress there – but they seem to vary a lot from state to state.
I’ve been mulling this over since it went up. I think it’s a grey area for me and my thesis – not saying I necessarily disagree with you here, but I think it would be hard to justify my case by direct appeal to this.
If the Pressies, either by overt motions in synod (? right term) or by de facto practice said, “You can’t be ordained or an elder unless you confess to some kind of complementarianism”, then that’d be a clear indicator of the thesis – and it sounds like Don has some examples of that.
But saying, “no more women elders” – that doesn’t, in and of itself, close the doors to egals. They can continue to exist (I’ll agree, far more marginalised than before) and try and reform the institution through persuasion. They can get male egalitarians ordained and made elders who teach congregations better. They might even be able to put unordained women on staff and have them preach. There’s still space for this setback not to be permanent.
But, I can see that going backwards is different from standing still. The experience of having comps try and shut down gains that egals made decades ago can certainly be experienced as the equivalent of a ‘believe in comp or leave’ sign. And I wouldn’t want to write that off either…
So line ball, this one, at least as far as my thesis goes – and that’s not meant to slight how you’re experiencing it.
Dave (and Luke)
In our presbyterian Church, we already had the choice for no women elders (not sure exactly what time but greater than 10 years) which has had the side effect of not having any “officially” recognised roles that women could take, and maybe a resulting discoruagement of women doing ministry in general. (Yes, we also had a female elder who was appointed before the official change)
More recently things have been positive for womens ministry in general: we have appointed deacons, most of whom are women. We also have a women’s pastoral worker. We also have a womens’ ministry which organises a few events, including a camp, which generally have a reasonably qualified female speaker.
Comp and Egal threads
Part 1 – 25 comments
Part 2 – 86 comments
Part 3 – 93 comments
Part 4 – 14 comments (at 2 days old)
Wow Mark, if you’re getting paid based on ratings, you must be doing well this month.
You seem to have hit on to the hottest issue of our time.
a
Mark, no slight taken as to how I am experiencing life in my denomination and how you relate it to your thesis.
I would like to comment though on a couple of things.
1 – You seem to believe that it is easier for egals to live in a comp setting that comps to live in in an egal setting. I understand your logic as you have explained it (as much as I have understood it) but I do not agree with it. As an egal I might not have a problem sitting under a comp as I do not have a problem with a male speaker. However I am robbed of ever hearing a female perspective. You have claimed that other than plumbing egals see no difference between genders. This is not true. To be in a church where only half the potential ‘workforce’ is given freedom to use their gifts means that I am not allowed the benefit (the fruit) of those gifts. My wife and daughters cannot express the gifts that they have been given. I have as much reason to try and push comps out as comps do to push egals out. But I choose not to try and push them out.
2 – You seem to believe that it is the egals who have raised the stakes, though you then seem to question who it might be who raised the stakes. You mention, as one example, the egals likening the women’s issue to slavery. I have never heard an egal do this. I have heard egals (including myself) respond to the comp claim that 2000 years of church history shows that comps are correct by saying that the church was wrong about slavery for hundreds of years so what does it prove? The church might have been wrong for 2000 years. Perhaps you can back up your statement and produce some evidence of egal’s comparing the women issue with slavery where egals actually say the comp view is like slavery, which very much seems to be what you have suggested.
3 – With every two points you get a third one free! You also suggest that it is the egals who have made this a gospel issue. Perhaps you can give us some evidence for a claim like that? In all my discussions on this topic I have to say I have only experienced one side making this a gospel issue. That was the comp side and it came straight from CBMW. I can provide you with a link if you like, but I did a response to the article on my blog, and amazingly had old mate from CBMW visit us, until he could not answer the questions we asked him and he ‘ranout of time’ suddenly. All the egals I have heard have wanted to keep this from being a gospel issue.
In closing, you seem surprised by the number of egals who have shown up to talk. I am not surprised. My experience is that it is usually the egals who want to talk. CBMW does not discuss their views publically and some comp blogs ban egals from commenting and ‘command them to be silent’. Egals relish the opportunity to dialogue…or perhaps this is just the way the ‘new’ egals operate?
Sorry, my first point should have talked in terms of staying, not pushing others out. Too early in the morning when I posted!
Mark, speaking of my ‘line ball’ example of comps forcing egals out, it is true that Egals can still become elders, and in my case, even ministers. I should add though that to become a minister I kept my views under wraps. I was able to do this as there is no ‘official’ policy and also it was assumed that I was comp!
It is interesting though, because if I read Malcolm Davey correctly, his pressie church decided within itself not to have any more women elders. I imagine it has also decided not to make elders those who wish to see women made elders. They would be actively seeking people who are like minded in regards to leadership. Malcolm’s church is not the only Pressie church that has made this decision, I know of others.
I should add that when going through the process of being a candidate for the ministry in the pressie system I had what I would call “old school” egals ask me if I had a problem working with women. The reason was, they wanted to stop comp blokes becoming ministers (to put it very simply). I am now on a committee that assesses students in my presbytery who are candidating. I never ask them for their view on women in ministry of the home. My denomination has not put it down as something that I should assess, either way.
Finally, in regards to the Baptists and where they are up to, a close friend recently did some study at Morling and it would appear that the women’s issue is woven into much of the course. Info is presented from oth sides and your view does not determine your mark, rather your ability to exegete. There was a blog on one subject amongst the students and many were CBMW wannabes, but both views were present and everyone played nicely. I wish the PTC had allowed two sides to be represented. Point is though, both live side by side in some contexts happily. Surely, you need to apply your thoughts on moderates and ‘truly convinced’ to this part of the discussion rather than blanket statements about what comps and egals do to each other?
In case you think I have gone mad…I have. This is my day off and I am blogging. But, in an effort to help round out your thesis Mark (someone needs to provide you with some balance!) I will outline to you the way I see the two different sides of the debates.
Comps – two main types, who I would label soft and hard. Moderate and extreme, if you like. CBMW is extreme/hard. They try to present a poor impression of the egal position, they love the straw man. They will not compromise their position and will, as you say, leave rather than sit under a woman preaching. Sadly they appear to be seen as fairly moderate by many. Jereth seems like a nice bloke(!) but appears to on the whole accept what they present, I would suggest, without asking too many questions (I hope I have not misrepresented you Jereth).
Soft comps have a plain reading of scripture but bring this together with a helpful balance of love and grace (which I think Jereth has!). I have and do work with soft comps, and have benefited from and loved the experience.
I see two types of Egals. Although strictly speaking both have been around for a long time I call one ‘old’ and the other ‘new’. The old tends to be the one that has been in the Presbyterian circles for a while. Many of their arguments are not based on sound Biblical exegesis or methods. They are usually labelled as liberal.
The ‘new’ egals do rely on good exegesis and like to form their views from scripture, as Don has indicated he does. Their position is not derived from social pressures or norms.
Please note that CBMW often use the poorly presented arguments of the ‘old’ egals as well as inaccurate representations of the ‘new’ egal arguments. As to whether or not egals are ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ is difficult to define. Usually if you are egal you are egal. Some might go to a greater length than others to push other out, etc, but I have found this is usually the ‘old’ egals.
The above is based on my experience. If you would like me to back up my views with examples, I can. What I am trying to show is that I do not believe your representation of Egals (or even comps at points) has been accurate. Some would say it is not informed. I would not say that…though the other option (if indeed you have not been accurate) is an even worse accusation. I should stop there before you do what my dad used to do and start taking his belt off…ok, ok I have stopped!
Following up my concern over santified sin, some comps may CLAIM that egals do not want to obey Scripture, but this is not what any egal I know is doing, they are disagreing with comps about WHAT Scripture says. Some comps may CLAIM that egals want to duck responsibility, but this not what any egal I know is doing. That is, some may be egal for the wrong reasons and should stop using wrong reasons.
But here is an essential difference. Comps teach that some men have authority over some women in a way that can NEVER be symmetrical due to their gender, period. So the men doing this interpretation should seriously consider that they are doing it for power seeking reasons, ala sin and do their best to avoid such. I would ONLY accept power over another adult if Scripture could NOT be interpreted any other way, due to my concerns.
Why? Because we see from history that kings interpreted the Bible to keep their special power over others and slaveholders interpreted the Bible to keep their special power over others. So we KNOW it can happen from history and we also know we are all sinners, quite capable of deceiving ourselves.
Dave
Hmmm.
Your comment about women in your church (or a certain church) not being able to use their gifts (assuming I am reading you right). This is a bit reductionist as if the only important ministry is pulpit teaching as opposed to other ministries/services, and that there aren’t other forms of teaching opportunites. In my previous comment I mentioned that there are plenty of opportunities for women to use teaching gifts in my Church.
I think in some Churches where there is a lack of opportunities for ministry for women, there this is often a general problem, and not just an issue for women. This is definitely the case where the “minister” really is the only minister.
The other issue is that scripture places the emphasis on serving the body and the goal – rather than emphasizing the gift or the person. Yes, there is talk about people having different gifts. But there is also talk about the goal, and the purpose. 1 Cor 14 (first half) argues that we should be concerned for the building and edification in our thinking about gifts. Eph 4 emphasises the goal of the maturity of the church( yes – as each part does its part).
On your response to my comments I don’t know if it is just our Church, the denomination (at State level or at other levels). I think the assumption about us not allowing egals to be elders would need justifying – please refrain from assuptions without evidence. My understaning is that you need to adhere to the doctinal statement which essentially meaans the west minsters confession, unless you can “improve”/update it by showing sound reasoning (not sure how this works out in practise – but I think I know one pressy minister who has done this).
Dave
Personally I know Jereth so I can offer all his dirty laundry.
Yes Jereth is good and careful about his presentation. Personally I would call him uncompromising. Jereth has done a lot of harding thinking and reading a lot of egal books in trying to work out if egal or comp is (most) faithful to scripture – so you will probably find his views not changing much – that’s primarly because he has heard a lot of the egal arguments and exegesis/hermenutics.
Hopefully we are all Hard headed and soft hearted.
i.e. not being wishing washing but clear about what we believe and the teaching and application of scripture. (hard headed)
But also loving and careful and thoughtful and nuanced about application and sensitive to peoples positions, and desiring their growth and the churches, rather than caring about laws in themselves.
Another way to put it : We should speak the truth in love.( Eph 4)
BTW there was a synposims teaching comp ideas last weekend, with opportunity for questions recently. Open to all – in fact a well known egal was there and had a chat afterwards with at least one of the speakers.
Don’t know how CBMW is going now – its a bit far away.
There are some willing to talk.
Malcolm.
Hmmmm.
I do not believe I was being reductionistic. I was actually thinking of 1 Cor 14 and Eph 4 when I made the comment. You stop people using their gifts where they are gifted to serve and the body of Christ misses out. It is not edified.
I am assuming you are attending a Pressie church in NSW. If this is true then if your church has decided not to have elders it has decided to do this in the fece of the PCA of NSW saying that it can happen.
If your minister is in the PCA then he cannot change or improve the WMC of faith without leaving the PCA.
Jereth seems like a lovely bloke!
Jereth seems like a lovely bloke!
Awwwww shucks
Dave
Location: Melbourne
”But saying, “no more women elders” – that doesn’t, in and of itself, close the doors to egals. They can continue to exist (I’ll agree, far more marginalised than before and try and reform the institution through persuasion. They can get male egalitarians ordained and made elders who teach congregations better. They might even be able to put unordained women on staff and have them preach.”
It closes the door to women called and gifted to bless the body of Christ with their teaching and leadership gifts. I’ve seen how some who believe in the illusive Shepherding Movement concept of male covering try to be accepting of women’s gifts but keep male leadership. This is a soft comp approach because most comps will not allow women to teach a mixed Bible Study. By putting a man over all women’s responsibilities that would lead and teach men, they can then claim that the women are being ‘watched’ even though the man may do absolutely nothing except be publicly looking as if the ministry is really his and not the woman’s, as if he were organizing and directing the ministry. What this is actually doing is taking the glory from God who called and equipped the women and giving it to a man. In the cases that I have witnessed this happening, it also quenches the Holy Spirits working in the church, though they are blind to it.
It may surprise you to know that there are women who teach and lead better than men. It is a great loss to the body of Christ that these women are being held back from the body and replaced by men of whom some are not really called and equipped, when these women are.
“They might even be able to put unordained women on staff and have them preach.”
IMO Churches should have plenty of people who preach because they are called to by God regardless of whether they are ordained or on staff.
Hi Dave,
I’m not wanting to get involved in a big way here but I can help out with an example such as you ask for:
Kevin Giles uses the slavery issue both as an example of the church “getting it wrong” (as you suggest), but he also goes further. Have a look here:
Do you notice how strong this is? We comps have gotten the second-most important doctrine (ahead of the gospel?) wrong. We’re sneaky. We’re self serving. We’re like slavery defenders.
:-{
“Do you notice how strong this is? We comps have gotten the second-most important doctrine (ahead of the gospel?) wrong. We’re sneaky. We’re self serving. We’re like slavery defenders.”
Actually, I think Giles has some excellent points. However, I would not in most cases consider it to be intentional, any more than most slave owners were intentionally demeaning their slaves. They really believed that it was God’s order. If you’ve read any of their reasoning, it all came from Scripture. At first glance it seemed accurate. After all God is omnipotent and if God chooses to arrange human relationships according to race or gender, surely that is His prerogative.
Fair point. However, I don’t think intentionality is the real issue here. The issue alluded to by Mark and Andrew is that many egals (such as Giles) regard complementarianism as an evil of similar order to slavery, irrespective of the intentions (good or bad) of complementarians.
If male headship is that serious an evil—on par with slavery—then it must be fought and overthrown. Anyone who simply stands by and does not fight is guilty of condoning an evil, denigrating practice.
Jereth
<em>“If male headship is that serious an evil—on par with slavery—then it must be fought and overthrown. Anyone who simply stands by and does not fight is guilty of condoning an evil, denigrating practice.”</i>
Interesting. Do you consider slavery an evil that must be overthrown? Why do you suppose that the apostles did not approach it the way you suggest?
Hi Teri,
I sense a trap <grin>
Jereth,
If you sense a trap, might I suggest that you took a wrong turn in logic?
OK Mark, just have to point out a few things about this post…….
”In other words, when women bishops are about to be introduced egalitarian evangelicals who strongly support women’s ordination shed no tears at the thought of their complementarian fellow-evangelicals leaving (either voluntarily as an expression of their disagreement, or being forced out because they won’t submit to a woman’s authority).”
It’s really interesting that you complain about this yet this has been what’s been happening to women in many churches where they desire to exercise their gifts and callings as teachers, preachers and leaders.
”For egalitarians, as I suggested in the previous post, and we will discuss in more detail in the future, women’s ordination is a ‘gospel issue’—and so implementing it fully is more important than keeping on side people who believe in justification by grace through faith but oppose women having authority over men.”
Has your alter ego surfaced and posted this statement? It seems a bit off from the sensibleness I’ve previously heard from you. The only people that the subject of women in ministry is a gospel or salvation issue to is the hard core hierarchalists. This is one of the ways they keep their women subjected to their patriarchal belief system. And please don’t tell us that you really believe that Christian egals don’t believe in justification by grace through faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Just because someone might be able to intellectually paint something into those terms does not mean its anywhere true. Whereas hierarchalists have come right out and claimed it publically that women’s submission is a part of the gospel.
”Yet, so important was introducing women bishops with no provisions for protecting the consciences of fellow evangelicals, that Fulcrum did something almost unprecedented—it publicly broke ranks with Rowan Williams, senior bishop of the Church of England.”
Tell me one instance where any comp church has given a straw about the consciences of those who disagree with their stance on women? As a Christian woman who has suffered great pain from the abusive treatment toward women who are gifted contrary to non egal belief systems, I have received primarily mockery and patronizing at best. Those churches never even noticed when I left nor did they ask why.
<em>”If even the Church of England can’t find a way not to force out complementarians, we should expect separation to take place whenever egalitarianism is endorsed by an institution. It won’t happen in absolutely every instance—some Christians will prefer compromise to forcing the issue—but we should recognize that that will be the exception, not the rule, at least over the long term.”</i>
Interestingly, compromise has been happening all along among Christians who believe in Biblical equality. Women don’t worry about being recognized with respectful titles like the men receive. They content themselves with being able to do the work and not receive the acknowledgments. They accept that some churches who will allow women to do some teaching, preaching and leading must hover over them and make a big show of watching and guiding them and more. And many more women look for other places to exercise their gifts than church. There are so many ways that egals have been compromising.
Thus, it isn’t egals who aren’t compromising. It’s non egals who don’t know how to compromise. And its non egals who have for centuries been attempting to force out egals. Good grief many egals are aware of some true horror stories of how some have been forced out or slandered unjustly. What about Klouda, an incredible injustice. Don’t tell me you don’t know about that instance?
Well, I’ll take a quick break from my break from comments. The other option, Teri, is that it is just a trap – you’ve asked a leading question without giving any indication of which of multiple ways various egalitarians understand the history of Christian acceptance and opposition to slavery you personally take.
If we go back to Kevin Giles, in the aforementioned book by Andrew Moody (and thanks for contributing that, mate), Giles makes it clear that he considers that all the biblical writers (and it seems even Jesus himself) all thought slavery was okay and had God’s approval and backing. He says any attempt to argue otherwise is just dishonesty.
It seems to me that he says that Christians had to wait until the Enlightenment and a new cultural context before they could see other facets in the biblical witness that changed the meaning of the texts. What had been okay, was now sin. If the 19th Century apologists for slavery had run their case in the 1st century that would have been fine, and entirely in line with the views of Jesus and the apostles. The problem is that they ran it in the 19th Century.
So, his argument to your question (and he’s a well respected egalitarian evangelical) is, “They didn’t oppose it because they thought it was okay, and the texts they wrote had that meaning at that time.”
But it’s different now. Now we can all see that slavery is wrong. Any Christian that did not clearly and forcefully oppose slavery today would be considered very morally suspect.
And that’s Jereth’s original point. Your ‘trap’ only works if you’re prepared to say that you think it’s perfectly fine for a Christian today to not oppose slavery with every fibre of their being, to say, “Wiblerforce? Yes, what he did wasn’t wrong but it would have been okay if no Christians had opposed the British Empire’s slavery.”
Most Christians will say, however they handle the slavery passages in Scripture, “Christians should oppose slavery root and branch and without compromise.” By drawing a close comparison between slavery and complementarianism (with the proviso that slavery apologists are just more honest than complementarians, nice touch there), it makes anything other than absolute conflict difficult.
Compromise on this issue would be like being in fellowship with ‘Christians’ who are part of the local chapter of the Bring Back Racially Based Slavery Party. Or are you saying you’d be happy with that?
”And that’s Jereth’s original point. Your ‘trap’ only works if you’re
prepared to say that you think it’s perfectly fine for a Christian today to
not oppose slavery with every fibre of their being, to say, “Wiblerforce?
Yes, what he did wasn’t ‘wrong’ but it would have been okay if no Christians had opposed the British Empire’s slavery.”
There is another option. As you pointed out at that time in history, the time when Paul appealed to Philemon to release Onesimus, slavery was fully accepted. It was fully accepted until mid 1800’s or so.
Comparatively, women’s subjection was also fully accepted. Even today it is fully accepted by many in the church although today we do not say it is because women are inferior to men. Other reasons are used. So, why cannot the comparison be that just as Paul did not accuse Philemon of whatever wrong Paul felt he was committing to keep slaves, but rather pleaded with him to release Onesimus to serve the church….. be the way Christians approach the subject of women’s subjection. Truth is that women are needed just like Onesimus was needed. The universal Body of Christ today desperately needs to be blessed by the full spiritual giftings of all its members. IMO preventing women’s spirit led involvement is part of the reason that so many are leaving churches today. We are missing the input of truly gifted women. There is a vast exodus that is unlike any other era because of the lack of true spiritual anointing in churches.
Hi Teri,
Why can’t that be the comparison? Well it can be for you. It isn’t for Giles, I think, in the book Andrew’s quoted from – it would undercut a lot of his argument. He wants Christians to see complementarianism as on a par with defending slavery.
And I don’t think it can be that for any Christian today who could not follow Paul’s example in dealing with a hypothetical modern Philemon. Paul indicates that he will not order or command, that he wants a voluntary release. By doing so, he is implying that if Philemon opted to keep Onesimus a slave Paul would accept that as a morally defensible decision. This is consistent with the household codes that never call on Christian masters to release their slaves.
And again I’d say, most Christians today would not accept that if faced with a modern example of a Christian owning a slave. They would not accept a Christian owning slaves as consistent with their faith in Christ. And if that’s the case, the comparison can’t work.
If the two issues are linked, then whatever would be a Christian’s reaction to encountering slavery today should also be their reaction to complementarianism today.
If you’re okay with slaves today, then you can be okay with women submitting today – that’s the basic connection that Giles is making in that quote (and the surrounding chapters) for the purposes of our discussion here – he’s obviously making other points as well.
I’ll have to leave things until Monday, I’ll read where ever the conversation goes from here, but I should be silent for another day or two.
Is this really the way you read Philemon?
It seems obvious to me that the MAJOR SUBTEXT of Philemon is that Paul wants Onesimus to be be freed and not punished.
It was legal for Philemon to free Onesimus. What was not legal was for Paul to try to go around Philemon in some way in doing this. Yes, slaveholders used Philemon to justify their fugitive slave law, but that does not mean that is the right way to read it.
One should be very skeptical when an adult who is over another adult uses Scripture to be over them, like kings and slaveholders did, as the heart is deceitful. And the essence of being deceived is that one does not think they are wrong.
Hi Don,
It’s the way Giles reads Philemon. Paul is simply asking for the release of one slave, not the release of all. There’s no whisper of a suggestion in the text that slavery is a problem – just that Paul wants Onesimus’ help and on that basis wants him freed. Giles would accuse you of just reading what you want to believe into the text. Your ‘major subtext’ has no text.
The household codes don’t call on masters to free the slaves. Not even the qualifications for elders indicate that an elder shouldn’t own slaves. There’s nothing outside Philemon to indicate a disagreement with slavery, and, when that is factored in, nothing in the text of Philemon either. It’s just eisegesis.
It’s not my argument, it’s Giles’. And needs to be kept in mind when assessing how serious his linking of the two issues are – how much he’s ‘upped the ante’ of the rhetoric. Which is what this is about. Not what my own views on slavery are, or even what Teri’s or his are.
Okay, back to work. Let’s try not to put our challenges too provocatively for the next day or two eh?
Go ahead and be silent, Mark. Tend to your studies. I don’t want to disturb you. I’ll just continue on with whomever is willing….
”Why can’t that be the comparison? Well it can be for you. It isn’t for
Giles, I think, in the book Andrew’s quoted from – it would undercut a lot
of his argument. He wants Christians to see complementarianism as on a par
with defending slavery.”
The thing is that I also see gender hierarchalism (not necessarily complementarianism as a whole) as on par with black slavery by whites. Because it is so acceptable by so many to subjugate women from spiritual ministry of teaching, preaching, and leading men in churches, doing so is considered a morally defensible choice. This is consistent with Scriptures never pointedly calling for women to be released into ministry, yet Paul pointedly and obviously supporting women in ministry. As well, Jesus never pointedly said anything much about women being released yet He deliberately did many things to show full acceptance with women on par with men: woman at the well, Mary choosing the good thing of learning, the woman’s anointing Jesus feet that Jesus praised her perception, not stoning the adulteress, allowing women followers, appearing first to Mary and more. Paul was only following Jesus’ example. Fighting tooth and nail for what is right is not the only option to lead people to truth.
”If the two issues are linked, then whatever would be a Christian’s reaction to encountering slavery today should also be their reaction to
complementarianism today”.
Today slavery is not accepted so there the comparison stops. But today female subjection is accepted. And those who see gender hierarchy as not showing forth God’s glory or goodness do have gut reactions to it, that might be similar to someone who encountered modern slavery, or say modern polygamy.
And it’s not about women submitting. Wifely submission (not obedience) is a good thing as is husbandly nurturing and protection. It’s about the subjection of women to the preeminence of men.
“Paul is simply asking for the release of one slave, not the release of all. There’s no whisper of a suggestion in the text that slavery is a problem”.
Really? :^) Then why are we reading it in our Bibles?
Perhaps, if you would view each woman on her own merit, you might see that where formerly the idea of women leading men seemed a useless concept to many, but I appeal to you that so many women today need to be heard by all the body. But perhaps, just looking at one woman at a time and freeing one woman at a time, on her own merit and the calling God has on her life in particular. Could you do that? Is there some woman in your church that believes God is calling her into teaching or leadership ministry. Can a minister pray and talk with her about it and consider just her calling, not all women. Perhaps, this is the example that Paul put forth in Philemon.
Alright, for better or worse, I can’t resist it anymore. I have to put my [semi-educated] $0.02 in.
From my reading of scripture and long reflection on current [church and secular] culture, I think when we talk about male leadership we start thinking about a certain idea in our heads about what that means, that is heavily influenced by both [abusive] secular culture and long Church tradition that has over millenia been influenced by worldly ways of looking at the world.
We say “leadership” and immediately think certain thoughts that are not necessarily biblical or God ordained.
If we assume that Christian men are called to be leaders in the family, then
Matthew 20:25-29 is a critical text for what that should look like:
My own take is that Ephesians 5:33 was written:
Because the Ephesian woman were so used to arrogant bossy domineering men that when they were [suddenly] confronted with a man who loves like Jesus, they were tempted to consider him weak and therefore despise him – hence the exhortation to respect their husbands. In 1st century [pagan] culture, not respecting your husband was probably not really an option open to the majority of women.
Therefore a clue to resolving this is actually to start looking at what [in detail] husbands loving their wives as chirst loved the church actually looks like in practice – with a special emphasis on the self-sacrificing service [the emphasised aspect of Christ’s love brought out by Paul in Ephesians 5:25-28.
Thanks Andrew for the reference to Giles. I have read some of Giles but not that book. I have found some of his stuff good, but not all of it. To go back to what Mark actually said to what I was asking evidence for was this, “I wish egalitarian leaders hadn’t led the donkey up the minaret by seeing this issue on a par with slavery, another gospel, or denying the deity of Christ.”
I guess I would still like evidence for this statement. Even with what Giles did say in the quote, he basically said the two arguments were the same in two ways. You might even agree with one of the two he mentions Andrew? So in some respects, perhaps he has said they are on par, but he certainly has not said they are on par.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for getting back. I think I am having a bit of trouble understanding what you are saying here, however:
Do you mean that Giles is saying they are alike in some ways but not universally? Maybe you could tease this (or what you do mean) out a little.
Maybe. ‘Sounds like another discussion, however
Ta
Yes Andrew, alike in someways but not universally. After all, even when I use the slavery argument in response to comps who say it is not possible for the church to have been wrong for 2000 years I am saying the two are on par at some level.
Mark’s statement was not qualified. I was also not aware that egals had also accused comps of denying the deity of Christ, or is this a reference to the ESS debate? If so, that is not what I have heard egals say. I have heard them say that this is where comp thinking logically goes, but is this the same as taking the debate to the level that Mark suggests? Is there really an Egal who believes that all comps deny the deity of Christ? Mark’s statement is very unqualified, though I suspect he will defend it by saying something to the effect that this is the way he talks and regular Sola readers would have understood him!
With regards to the other point, I had no intention of trying to start another discussion, I was simply pointing out what Giles had actually said. I do not think his words are as strong as you suggest, though I would not have chosen to use them myself.
Cheers!
Dave
Dave Woolcott
(this is a bit tangential to the thrust of the blog)
On the PCA: the introduction to the constitution mentions two ways one can vary from the WMC.
The constitution explicitly allows the changing of the subordinate standard (the WMC)(item 4 in Intro).
It also “recognising liberty of opinion on matters in the Confession of Faith not essential to the doctrine there in taught”
(item 3)
http://www.presbyterian.org.au/PDF/GAACode Book2006.pdf
There is a bit more to it I haven’t directly mentioned.
How this works out in practise I’m not sure.
Thanks David B.
Those verses (and your commentary) are really useful.
Often the culture swings from one side to the other – erring in either directions. The right answer is often holding two things which often don’t seem to fit.
e.g. “servant leadership”.
A friend from childhood use to say to me. Don’t get mad, get even. The Christians way says “forgive” which is the harder third option.
Hey Dave,
Weeeell I guess there’s not much point trying to prove the who is working with the more usual definition of “par” here. Nevertheless it looks a bit like you and Mark have a similar problem; while he uses the word “par” without explaining that it does not mean “the same at every point” you use the word “liken” with the same lack of qualification:
Did you mean “declaring identical” when you used the word “likening”? If so, ya got me: Kevin Giles does not, on that definition, liken slavery to the women’s issue.
Really? Where did I overstate it?
Andrew, as I was referring to what Mark had said, I was obviously using “likening” to “par”. Context is everything!
Andrew, you ask, “Really? Where did I overstate it?”
I would say here, “Do you notice how strong this is? We comps have gotten the second-most important doctrine (ahead of the gospel?) wrong.”
Is the “Gospel” a doctrine? Has Giles made any reference in the quote to the Gospel? Why have you brought this in? Giles has not.
We could argue about ‘little’ words all night. How bout you let Mark back up his own statement? I am sure he is capable.
Dave
The discussion about slavery is interesting for the parallels it has with the comp-egal debate, although not for the reasons highlighted above. More interesting is the way 19th century Afro-American slavery is read into references in the NT with little acknowledgment of the very significant differences between the two phenomena.
ISTM that modern church and gender structures are often read into the NT with scant regard for the differences which may have bearing on the correct appropriation and application of the text in the modern world.
Of course raising such concerns about readings of the NT is sometimes dismissed as hermeneutical legerdemain, with the objectors preferring the “plain reading” of the text or “exegesis not hermeneutics.” Such objections are, however, deceptive. Such a “plain reading” simply assumes a particular anachronistic hermeneutic which is implicitly applied to the text without warrant or justification.
Hi Dave,
Thanks again. I’ll think I’ll work backwards through your post.
I think he’s away at the moment according to thread three. But the good thing is we know that he endorses the quote I provided so I probably have the gist of what he is saying right – at least vis á vis slavery.
I know :-} We are part of a proud tradition of Christians arguing over tiny speech-particles that differentiate between likeness and identity. Makes you feel all fourth-century.
And we have achieved something useful by our semantic explorations too! We have discovered that an important part of your disagreement with Mark is just about different interpretations of the words “par” and “likeness”. When Mark said that egal leaders see the women’s issue as being “on a par with slavery” you understood him to mean that egals were saying that complementarianism is exactly the same as slavery; whereas he (based on his reaction to my quote) seems to have meant that egals have indicated significant (but not exhaustive) areas of overlap. This is good. Mark probably doesn’t believe what you understood him to be saying. And you (given your distancing yourself from Dr Giles’ comments—though you might want to say more here) seem to agree somewhat with what Mark was intending to communicate.
Ha. Sharp, thou art! Yes, I wondered as I wrote it whether I might run into trouble on the gospel-is-not-a-doctrine point. Quite correct, the gospel is a whole bundle of doctrines concerning sin and redemption and so on. But complementarians seem to have gone wrong at a point that is more fundamental than any of them. But I am ready to admit that the taxonomy Giles is using to create this hierarchy is a bit unclear – which is why I raised it as a question rather than a statement. But we can scratch it if you like.
Am I right apart from that?
When you say “everything” do you mean… just kidding ;-}
Thanks for the reply Andrew. I look forward to future discussions about small words!
Mark and I might be on the same page. This is one of the reasons for asking for some back up. It helps clarify what the person is saying.
Dave
Hi Dave,
Much appreciated, pardner. Really didn’t want to cause offense there – experience can be a hard thing to engage with well on threads.
No, it wasn’t really a reflection on egals at all. More that Sola has had posts on this topic before, of the standard “argue for one side and disprove the other” kind (and quite good ones in my view for that genre) and they’ve had minimal response.
So, factoring that in, I thought that, if I was right that people were looking for a substantial discussion of the issue, and I found a way to not just set it up as a ‘look I’ve proved the other side is wrong and my side is right’ kind of approach from the start and yet still gave signs that I was going to move in that kind of direction over time but exploring the issues far more than just bringing out what ‘proves’ my side, I might get some egals interested to listen in. A few might even contribute a bit.
I didn’t expect anything like this off a bunch of posts saying, “This debate is moving into a new phase, from a political point of view.”
The surprise has to do with how this has gone compared to other posts on this topic. It feels like a lot of pressure has been building up waiting for a chance to be expressed in a slighly safer environment.
Given the response to this series and what I expected, I’m not sure if I can manage the possible comments for when we do the substantial discussions – which I’d anticipate to be more again. So I’m doing a fair bit of musing.
Easier in the sense that they don’t have the sense that they are being required to sin. But it could be harder for them than for a comp.
It’s easier in the sense that, in practice, egals do exist in comp structures (as long as believing in comp isn’t required) and campaign for women’s ordination et al. It’s much harder to find the reverse.
“Easier” here isn’t trying to get at emotions, but political possibilities, and structures. It’s not the individual experience that is primarily on view.
But, simply huge vote of thanks for this paragraph. It’s one of those penny dropping moments for me. I’ve seen words like this a thousand times before and the implications never quite clicked like they finally have when you put it this time around.
This is where gender has a substantial constructive role for egalitarianism. Because the two genders can do the same tasks and functions, but also do them in complementary ways, there is a strong positive obligation to get women into the roles they don’t currently have.
It’s the other bit of the equation that I’d seen but never quite ‘gotten’ like I have this time around. The future health of the body of Christ can only be secured if women teach and lead. It’s another reason why women should have these roles.
The nuking of gender as creating distinct roles (and so then feeding into different roles for men and women) creates a vacuum for gender, which is then reexpressed as gender giving two very different ways of doing the same roles. Which means that women and men need to do all the roles the other do (or at least moving in that direction).
That’s great. A true ‘a ha’ moment – I’d seen it before, but not at this level.
Hi Dave,
Covering myself there. When I don’t someone or other tends to get twitchy and accuse me of misrepresenting egals. I think egals raised the stakes first and foremost. But that’s a comp perspective, so I acknowledge that someone could argue contrawise. If things weren’t so tense, and my words not always so carefully exegeted, I wouldn’t put the hedges in.
First one: Giles quote by Andrew. My take on it is as Andrew exegeted on my behalf (and thanks for that mate – helps me keep up). Giles actually has one sentence were he explicitly says ‘they aren’t exactly the same in seriousness’, but the overall thrust of his argument is as Andrew has quoted – they are the same kind of sin, and they’re both very serious in how the mistreat people, and abuse a fundamental doctrine. The only substantial distinction he offers (other than that sentence) is that the slavery defenders are more honest.
Second, Anne Eggebroten finished her article to the Sojourners Magazine on the issue of complementarianism with the Pauline quote: “For freedom Christ has set us free,” wrote Paul to the Galatians. “Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:URTamnvM3BsJ:www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj1007&article=the-persistence-of-patriarchy
That one’s fun as, in light of the preceding article, I think she has in mind both a semi-literal linking of complementarianism to slavery, and the idea that it is a denial of the gospel – on a par with returning to Judaism.
3. Listen to Jocelyn Anderson’s, author of Women this is war: gender, slavery, and the Evangelical caste-sytem, words when speaking at the Evangelical Women Rights Conference at around 18:50. She says, “complementarianism is a slave-holding Christianity”. It’s not an overstatement, it’s not a form of speech. The whole talk has been about women involved in ending slavery in the United States and the attempt by some evangelicals to theologically defend a slave-holding Christianity. http://hungryheart100.tripod.com/womansubmit/id10.html
4. Teri’s response to Giles’ quote on this thread. She might want to clarify her stance further, but as her words stand at the moment, they are like quite a number of conversations (face to face, not books, or threads) I’ve had with evangelicals who I would say are ‘really, really convinced egalitarians’ or some such form of words.
As I read Teri’s whole argument, she seems to be saying that, yes, there is something very similar about slavery and complementarianism, but opposing the idea that this forces egalitarians into an absolute fight. She appeals to how she see Jesus and Paul dealing with slavery to explain how egalitarianism can deal with complementarianism and not have to get into an absolute fight.
The difference between them that she’s spoken about so far (and our conversation hasn’t ended yet, so some nuances in her position might be yet to come to light) has been that no-one thinks slavery or polygamy is okay today, but that there are groups of people who think complementarianism is okay. That’s not a fundamental difference in their essential ethical structure.
Hi Dave,
And they’ve all been value for money.
Okay, good to know. I wouldn’t say this is a gospel issue as such. I think the fundamental assumptions of egalitarianism could make the gospel (understood broadly – more than just justication by grace through faith alone) hard to hold onto over time. Which is a close position. Again, I’m not saying anyone is wrong to say that that is or is not the case – on either side. I’m saying that some egals (and some comps) think that, and that makes it very hard to not split up.
For evidence of such a claim. Off the top of my head:
1. There was the quote from Belizikian from David Juniper http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_31/#5524
2. I’d have to track it down, but I’m fairly sure that Kevin Giles wrote an article in an Australian Anglican journal in response to an article by the then Australian Primate (Peter Carnley) where Giles argued that the gospel is about setting us free from hierarchies. Maybe Andrew (or anyone), if you’ve got easy access to a theological library in Oz you could confirm or deny that?
3. There’s the quote from the post above from Peter Kirk. He never says that complementarianism is another gospel. But when he talks about complementarian evangelicals as extremists. And talks about a newfound unity that will come when they leave, it’s hard to understand that without some sort of ‘different gospel’ implication behind it. Who is this ‘newfound unity’ between? Egalitarian evangelicals and egalitarian liberals. And this ‘newfound unity’ will be a step up from the unity that exists between egalitarian evangelicals and complementarian evangelicals?
How is that possible without some kind of gospel understanding being involved – if your evangelicalism is driving your views?
4. It’s similar with Charles Sherlock’s launch of Muriel Porter’s book, attacking the Sydney Diocese for it’s stance on women’s ordination. http://web.stpeters.org.au/views/papers/CS06launch.shtml
He’s casting his net widely in the speech. But he sees the spirituality and theology behind the rejection of women’s ordination as something that needs to be repented of before someone can live faithfully to the full gospel of Jesus Christ.
5. Grenz and Kjesbo, in Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry say:
If Christ’s redemption includes liberation from hierarchy, then that is part of the gospel. A gospel that does not include that, indeed that is linked to a view that God endorses hierarchy, is ‘another gospel’.
What Grenz and Kjesbo expect – that the preaching of the gospel will necessarily liberate women from hierarchy as an outworking of Christ’s redeeming work on the cross – is opposed and rejected by complementarians.
All of that is what I’m getting at when I say ‘a gospel matter’. It mightn’t all be Belizikian saying it in so many words. But it’s conceptions of the atonement, ways of talking about unity, about living in a way faithful to the gospel that tie this issue closely to the gospel itself.
Have to say that I’m really disappointed in all of this last comment.
”I think
the fundamental assumptions of egalitarianism could make the gospel
(understood broadly – more than just justication by grace through faith
alone) hard to hold onto over time. Which is a close position.”
Interesting and challenging statement. Exactly what fundamental assumptions of Christians who believe in Biblical equality, that are more than the good news of Jesus and justification by grace through faith alone, make it difficult to hold onto belief in Jesus as savior. You did not really clarify that in your points.
1. regarding Bilzikian’s comment… women who “have been beaten down into a mental state of subjection to the point of taking pride in hiding their light under a bushel and burying their talent in obedince to A FALSE GOSPEL presented to them as truth”. Perhaps, you are not aware of the “Quivering Movement” and the deep harm it has brought to women who are taught from the moment they accept Christ that they must live that way in order to be pleasing to Jesus.
2. Perhaps Giles quote is in reference to the same instances of false teachings in the Shepherding movement, the Quivering movement, and the full patriarchal movement.
3. Likely Kirk is referring to something regarding the same things….
4. Likely, Porter’s book is exposing the great harm that has been done to women in the name of Christianity in the form of the beliefs of male dominance in home and church.
”If Christ’s redemption includes liberation from hierarchy, then that is
part of the gospel. A gospel that does not include that, indeed that is
linked to a view that God endorses hierarchy, is ‘another gospel’. “
Clever, but an incorrect statement. There are many things that come as the result of the gospel working out in our lives. But the gospel is still only entailing certain essential beliefs in Christ alone by faith alone.
”What Grenz and Kjesbo expect – that the preaching of the gospel will
necessarily liberate women from hierarchy as an outworking of Christ’s
redeeming work on the cross – is opposed and rejected by complementarians.”
Of course it is. Which is why many of CBMW’s partners and supporters adhere to claiming that a belief in Christian Biblical equality is a false gospel and they at times put out statements that they eventually retrack that perhaps Christian egals are not really Christians after all.
This is an attitude that Christian egals are very aware of because they have been the recipients of it too often. Thus, they are not going to be promoting it toward others.
Yet, its much more complicated than that. Nothing about polygamy or slavery is acceptable today. But there are aspects of complementarianism that are acceptable. There are aspects of complementarianism that those who believe in Biblical equality applaud and promote, and in fact promoted before CBMW coined the term ‘complementarian’. I would say that there are aspects of the definition of complimentarity that egals actively live better than the full patriarchal aspects of complementarians.
Can a believer be mistaken about something and still be a believer?
I think the answer is this is obviously true. So I try to be careful not to add to the gospel.
I think many of the 1850s slaveholders were believers, but they were mistaken about slavery, as they allowed their self-interest to distort the message of Scripture.
Hi Dave,
Yars, I think some more fine tuning of the thesis might be required. I think my analysis is right for structures that don’t have a ‘federalist’ approach, or a deliberately inclusivist approach.
Some denominations have no sense of the ‘common good’ – it’s a federation of independent churches that cooperate to do a few things (like run a theological college). Baptist unions are usually like that.
Others are down the other end of the spectrum. Whatever their theology, in practice the local church is a part of a greater whole – Anglicanism and Presbyterianism would be examples of that (usually at different places on the spectrum).
Federalist structures will weather the centripedal forces more than ‘common good’ structures, I think – they’re designed to hold things together despite big differences. (The anglican church in Oz might hold formally over women bishops when the CoE can’t, for this very reason – at the national level, Oz is a federation of dioceses.)
And Moorling, from what I can see has a conscious policy of having every variety of Baptist represented and expressed in its theological training. It’s not really ‘confessional’ theological education in the sense I’d understand the term – it’s deliberately ‘multicultural’ or pluralist.
Those institutions can also weather the changes better as long as everyone accepts some compromises. The egals never try to have a woman president of Moorling for example, the comps be willing to do some subjects under women faculty.
As long as the Baptists don’t get a critical threshold of the more robust versions of the two sides, such a pluralist approach – which reflects Baptist views on the ground, rather than tries to inculcate an ideal version of what being Baptist should be – has reasonable chances of weathering the stresses.
Part of the bigger question for me will be how much the U.S. shapes evangelicalism world-wide. I can’t see most U.S. institutions not dividing over this. They’ve been dividing over issues for centuries, it’s part of their DNA.
It’s partly a question of how much their future is likely to shape the possibilities for everyone else. They write most of the books, have most of the ‘name’ leaders on the world stage if you speak English. They have more websites, and have a much larger number of influential preachers with big podcast ministries.
If they polarise structurally (and I think that’s likely) do we think that is likely to put cultural pressure on the rest of us in the age of the internet? And how do we factor that in?
That’s my question – and it adds onto the Gen Y question that Jereth raised back on thread 2.
As far as comment http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_4/#5682, which begins with:
You seem to suggest that it’s an alternative and superior bunch of categories to get at the fairly diverse phenomena that are labelled complementarianism and egalitarianism.
I think it is complementary – either just a further nuancing of the ones I offered, or a complementary set interested in different aspects of the phenomena and so categorising people a bit differently.
I basically agreed with where you were coming from, but didn’t see it as challenging anything I’d said, just adding more.
Hi Don,
I think this next bit is a good example of why I think it’s so hard for the two sides to talk to each other. Let’s start with your claim about comps from way up early in the thread:
We comps don’t want to oppress women, and we don’t like being bullies.
But
We have allowed ourselves to be deceived in this area. We actually are oppressing women and are bullies – we just are deceived about it so don’t realise it, but are somewhat culpable for that deception.
You then finish with a stirring reminder of how ‘we’ need to guard against the possibility of sin in anything we do – especially biblical interpretation because we then sanctify sin which makes it hard to repent from.
It’s a straightforward egal accusation – you comp guys are bullies and oppressors, you’re doing it because you’re deceived, but you’re culpably deceived. Your Bible reading is sanctifying your sin, something we all need to watch out for.
I suggested to you that that failed pretty well every test various egals were insisting comps follow when describing egals. It wasn’t remotely ‘fair’. I suggested that your accusation was of the same kind of level of me suggesting that egals had been deceived into justifying their sins by their reading of the Bible. It’s not that they want to disobey the Word of God or like shirking their God-given responsibilities they’ve just allowed themselves to be deceived in this area.
Such a criticism, I suggested, was the mirror image of yours – and about as unhelpful for constructive discussion, irrespective of whether it was or was not true.
You didn’t take the hint, you opted to argue that your claim of self-deception was right and any complementarian claim of self-deception was wrong, without seeing any irony in such a stance:
To a hypothetical accusation that egals might be in danger of self-deception, the egal gives himself and all other egals he knows a clean bill of health. Of course we aren’t in danger of that, it’s just a claim that some comps might make. I’m not self-deceived, I know I’m not.
This from the same guy who later says:
So, Don, tell me. Of all the different things you’ve said on the various threads, which ones did you say thinking you might well be wrong? Or did you say everything you said thinking you were right at that point?
But it gets better:
to be continued
concluding
There is an essential difference when it comes to self-deception. Comps believe in asymetrical relationships. And so comps are uniquely positioned to be self-deceived. Egals are, compared to comps, on this logic, somewhat immunised from the deceptive abilities of their sinful nature. As long as most egals follow your practice and ‘ONLY accept power over another adult if Scripture could NOT be interpreted any other way’ they, like you, will guard against the self-justifying dynamic of exercising authority and having responsibility.
The ironies here are at so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. But here’s a couple.
1. You, and no egal you know, shirks responsibility. And yet you (and I take it you don’t think you’re strange at this point) will only take on authority over another adult if it was the only possible way of interpreting Scripture. You’d take any other plausible interpretation of Scripture first. That’s your test. And the reason is purely for your interest – it is to protect you from self-deception.
So let me make this clear. When some comps suggest that egalitarianism is linked to not taking responsibility. What you’ve expressed here is precisely the behaviour and the thinking behind the behaviour that they’re talking about. You won’t take responsibility for another adult because that means taking authority – and that leaves you more vulnerable to self-justifying biblical interpretation. It’s a purely selfish set of motivations you enlist. Nowhere do you even remotely flag the possibility that you’ll take up authority or put it down simply on the basis of what love demands – what you determine the other person needs. You’ll only do it if you can’t find another plausible interpretation of Scripture. That is ‘shirking responsibility’.
And feel free to go back to thread 2 and look at Jereth’s astute reflections on Gen Y to see how that kind of suspicion of authority, and desire to avoid getting entangled in it, seems to be playing out in an entire generation that has taken such views on and internalised them. A generation of Peter Pans.
2. Men seeking to maintain asymetrical relationships should seriously consider whether they are doing it to hold up their power.
Okay, let’s make this clear. I resent the fact that God has made a world where I have to take responsibilities for others. I am Gen X to the core, I don’t even want to have to take responsibility for myself. It’s been a long, long process coming to terms with the fact that I have responsibilties for others. I trust God, and realise my instincts are ungodly, but I am so very far away from the bogeyman you picture.
So, the whole power thing? Anything but attractive. And as I talk to most comp men privately, the overwhelming majority don’t want the power. But because they love people they are prepared to take on responsibility and take up the authority that comes with responsibility. Most of us realise that life would be a lot more fun, and lot less costly, if we signed up to egalitarianism.
But what about the corollory of your thesis: men seeking to preserve power should seriously consider whether they are doing it to hold up their power.
Are you prepared to offer the mirror imaged concern? Women seeking to make relationships symetrical should seriously consider whether they are doing it because that gives them more power than they had before? That they are being motivated by a desire for power? Only those women seeking to remove any power from human relationships are genuinely free from your concern?
3. Slave-owners and kings interpreted the Bible to keep their power over others.
That’s it? Just those two groups? No one else, who sort to interpret the Bible to escape anyone’s power over them might have been motivated by self-interest?
So, if we don’t have power then we’re fairly immune from the danger eh? So while you said ‘we’ are all sinners and need to be careful about self-deception, in practice it’s only ‘you’ – ‘you comps’. Egalitarianism is able to trump the heart. It’s a shortcut to not being self-deceived, because it renounces power and power is the real engine room of sin’s deceit.
Which leads me then to one, final bit of irony for you Don. Have you heard the saying: Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall?
Who do you think might need to hear that more:
The complementarian that thinks that everyone equally are sinners whether they are low or high, with power or without it?
Or the egalitarian who works hard to not have any authority over adults because getting authority is the surest way to fall into self-deception?
Sure, I know I shirk reponsibility and seek power. I am a sinner. I want compliance, life is easier for me that way. I want others to like me and agree with me.
A Kingdom principle is the stronger help the weaker. A earthly principle is the stronger tend to get what they want.
Yes, everyone should examine themselves in regards to power seeking behavior, women do not get a pass. But justice is also a factor, there is a big diff between someone who seeks power and has it and someone who seeks power and does not have it.
Egals claim adults by virture of being adults have been given equal power and equal responsibility in the family and church by God. Comps claim males by virtue of being male have been given superior power and more reponsibility in the family and church by God.
Surely you see the essential difference? Comp interpreters, the vast majority of which are men, claim they get more. It is true that power and responsibility are tied together, in the Bible and in Spiderman comics. But when someone gets more then the other gets less and this is where justice as a Kingdom principle is useful.
The world of the Bible was very patriarchal and God spoke into that world, but that does not mean that patriarchy was endorsed as God’s best. God accomodates to where people and where peoples are at in getting them to come more and more into the Kingdom step by step. And the consistent progressive revelation of God in the Bible is towards egalism. This is why it was mainly Christians that opposed slavery of a few hundred years ago.
Still no time today but did want to put forward a thought before I forgot it…
Don wrote:
This has merit. Many times I have seen individuals take authority over another not to protect or help them but to protect their own authority and privileges. People talk about “giving away authority” as if it were their possession. This type of thinking is contrary to Scripture IMO.
Anyone is capable of being deceived on any point no matter how uniquely intelligent or informed they are. Everyone shirks some responsibility we have to love our neighbor at some point.
Taking some action of care for another person, is not the same as taking responsibility for or exercising authority over them. We are to spur one another on toward good works, supporting, encouraging, admonishing and whatever it takes to help each other become more like Jesus and doing the same works that He did. We do not need to ‘take authority over’ one another to do this.
Godly authority is a good thing because its goals are to promote the best interest of the other. Human taking of authority over others is not a good thing and does not produce good results in the other person.
All of this can be caged in words other than authority over. IMO Christians and Christian leaders would do well to stop talking about authority, who has it, who doesn’t, who shouldn’t, etc. We would do better to just live it paying close attention to the results to see that we are living it honorably.
Not true. Costliness really has nothing at all to do with it. Biblical equality and mutuality requires that we actively seek to do all the ’one anothers’ of Scripture. We need to honor one another, pray for one another, forgive one another, support one another, bear one another’s burdens, care for one another, make room for each other’s unique gifts, and so forth. The end result is going to be better but it is more work in general and more work intellectually, physically, emotionally and spiritually. I don’t know about how fun reads into it but I suppose when we are living life the way God wants, there will be more joy.
Perhaps, you are confusing worldly concepts of egalitarianism.
This is a bit in left field IMO. Yes, women should have more power in many relationships than they do under patriarchy. But it isn’t a desire for power in the same way that patriarchy lends men more power. It is rather a desire for equality, mutuality and fairness. Humanity as a whole does need power in government because humans are sinful. But women do not need power exercised over them because they are women.
This has appearances of meanness, but likely that isn’t the intent.
Why would anyone believe that egals don’t believe that everyone is equally a sinner and prone to sin, whether they have power or not? And why would anyone think that egals work hard not to have any authority at all. Authority is not a bad thing in itself. Exercising authority over people who don’t need it, claiming authority one has no rights to are the problems, among others.
My 2 cents on the slavery thing…
These texts (besides Philemon) show that the Bible’s attitude towards the institution of slavery was not positive. The Bible merely tolerates and regulates slavery as an inevitable part of our fallen world – like divorce.
The apostles did what was appropriate in their day – they gently criticised slavery while offering practical instruction that would make slavery fairer and more bearable for those who were under it.
By contrast, the Bible never criticises the institution of marriage (or male headship). The Bible never encourages wives (or husbands) to “avail themselves of the opportunity” to get out of marriage. The Bible doesn’t group male headship together with other sins. Old Testament wives aren’t emancipated from their husbands after 7 years, and marriage celebrants are not punished by death. The institution of marriage goes back to the Garden, not to the fall.
If people are willing to read the Bible carefully, they will see that the Biblical attitude towards slavery is radically different from the Biblical attitude towards male headship. Any parallel drawn between the 2 things is an entirely false one.
Great read!
technical question: part 3 seems to have disappeared? any help?
Hey Adrian,
Try http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_31/
Don’t ask me why that 1 is at the end, but I think that’s the problem.
:-}
While not endosing slavery, it has noted that slavery in NT times wasn’t exactly equivalent to that seen in the Atlantic slave trade (etc). Slaves weren’t generally treated as objects. Slaves could earn money and buy themselves out of slavery.
Slaves weren’t seen as less than human.
Hi Teri,
No, not really. You haven’t met my wife.
I have no doubts at all that she is a much better preacher to women than I am to men, to women, or to mixed congregations. As I think you usually don’t get good outcomes over time by having a woman preach to men, I can’t really compare there, but if one could I think Jennie would be at least as good at preaching in that context as me – does some things better, others things I do better.
Really not a question of ability considered in the abstract for me.
Hi Teri,
Okay, fire away
I don’t mind repeating on myself on this because I know my style on this is idiosyncratic. It’s not a complaint. It’s not a criticism. I think it is wrong for people to think that egalitarianism is a gospel matter, an ethical issue on a par with slavery. But, once that bridge has been crossed, they are acting with integrity to behave this way.
I’m not complaining about their behaviour here. I’m talking to other complementarians and saying – understand that within the movement of egalitarianism, a lot of leaders see this as either/both of:
+an issue of fundamental justice
+an issue of how Christ’s redemption has transformed human relations
And here in these examples you can see what that looks like. The subtext is not “aren’t they mean”, but “don’t think personal relationships will necessary be sufficient to prevent this kind of outcome”.
Yep. I’m Dr Baddeley and Mr Worse. Mr Worse wrote that bit, but I’ve taken the drugs and he’s in remission just at the moment.
But neither he or I think that egals don’t believe in justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. That’s not quite what ‘a gospel issue’ is getting at. We’ll pick it up when I respond to your fisking of my evidence to Dave for comments by egals that I think indicate that this is seen as a ‘gospel issue’.
As far as the hierarchalists go, there I’m a bit torn. If someone goes for some kind of direct equation of submitting and gospel, well that’s just heresy. Doesn’t matter if you were trying to safeguard something important – most heresies start because someone put their hands on the Ark in an attempt to stop it tipping over. You still get struck down nonetheless.
But us Anglicans are aware of how a similar (how similar we can discuss next year – I’ll just flag that I’m not saying it is the same) argument is under way over homosexuality. Among those arguing for homosexuality is an argument that God includes the excluded, he sides with the oppressed, he is opposed to those with power. And in the modern world that has to include homosexuals – they are excluded by modern day Jews (conservative Christians) who appeal to the law for their justification, who have institutional power, who oppress homosexuals.
In that debate conservatives have argued that not engaging in homosexual sexual activity is a gospel issue. Engaging in sex outside of marriage won’t send you to hell necessarily. But saying that the gospel is uninterested in your sexual behaviour – interested only in how you do it (faithfuly, lovingly etc) and not who you do it with – well that’s pretty well another gospel territory. They might even use a form of words like ‘the gospel includes repenting from sexual immorality’ to try and get at the issue.
To the degree that some complementarians are trying to make a similar kind of argument here on this issue, I won’t rule it out of court automatically. Indeed, if it is very carefully said, I might say something a bit similar. Because many egals will make the same argument on the homosexuality issue. So on this issue it has to be argued on its merits – which is what I’ve said about the egals taking this line. They might be right – not just about eglitarianism, but about how serious an issue it is. The arguments have to be heard, engaged with, and weighed.
Hi Teri,
Again. Not ‘those terrible egalitarians’. But. “Those principled and ‘very committed egalitarians’ who are not willing to compromise on this issue”. Again, the subtext is, “For many egalitarians it is not just that women can be in leadership, but that they should be, and for some leaders of the movement it is not even just that they should be, but that they must be.”
It’s an exercise in understanding the other first and foremost, not in throwing stones.
But instances where comp churches have given a straw?
The Sydney Diocese is one example that springs to mind. A lot of people don’t think women should preach to men. The current Archbishop doesn’t. But women are licensed to preach to mixed congregations. Egalitarian pushes to introduce women priests have been repeatedly rejected by synod. But I think synod would find it hard to vote for a candidate for Archbishop who didn’t make it clear he would be prepared to continue licensing women accordingly even if his convictions were otherwise.
For an overwhelmingly comp diocese, I think that’s pretty gracious. It falls far short of what egals want – they want women priests. But it’s giving official recognition to a practice many in the Diocese think is sin. And I think you can find that elsewhere in comp circles, even if it’s not the rule.
Hi Teri,
No, had no idea at all before you mentioned it. As an Australian Anglican, about the only two things I know about American Southern Baptists is Albert Mohler and that they had a big fight between conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists and moderate evangelicals/liberals a couple of decades ago.
However, a quick google and I think I’ve identified the incident you’re referring to.
It’s hard for me to call that an ‘injustice’, although I disagree with the decision – at Moore women have taught biblical languages.
Colleges are allowed (more than allowed, have a responsibility) to determine their theology and teach and practice accordingly. I can’t get a job in any college that requires belief in YEC and belief in teetotalism. If a College I was in changed on those positions I’d be required to leave. That’s just life for those of us in theological education. Unlike those who teach maths, medicine, engineering, biology, history etc, in theology it’s not just a question of competency in the discipline – it is also a matter of the concrete doctrine that is believed and practiced by the institution.
That’s not fun. But the alternative is what I see here in the U.K. where I was talking with a very nice lady over lunch who teaches NT, ethics, and doctrine at a small Catholic university. She is, of course, a former anglican, whose former husband, an anglican clergyman, divorced her to marry his church secretary. She is, in no sense, Catholic. She was quite frank with me that she thought that God, “whoever he or she is” must find the whole debates over gender and homosexuality utterly bizzare. The UK tries to run much of its theological education on the liberal education model. And so theology and practice are completely divorced.
I disagree with the decision about Klouda. But that’s much bigger than this gender question. It’s a question about theological colleges embracing a confessional, not inclusivist or liberal education, model. And I think that’s critical – even if some of us theologs get sacked from time to time because of it.
As to your bigger point. I think you’re saying what I’ve said a number a times, just from an egal perspective. Egals can compromise within a comp institution and keep functioning – as long as they aren’t made to say that they believe in comp. The ‘compromise’ they do is not a compromise of their conscience, but it’s still something important, and reflects well on them.
But a comp submitting to a woman is a compromise of conscience – and that’s rarely praiseworthy. They’re doing what they think is wrong just to stay in a group. And that’s normally not held up as humble, it’s normally seen as corrupt and lacking principle or integrity. Few people think that that kind of compromise reflects well on the person doing it.
”As I think you usually don’t get good outcomes over time by having a woman preach to men, I can’t really compare there”
“Good outcomes over time”. What does this mean?
”I think it is wrong for people to think that egalitarianism is a gospel matter, an ethical issue on a par with slavery.”
I agree.
”
For egalitarians, as I suggested in the previous post, and we will discuss in more detail in the future, women’s ordination is a ‘gospel issue’”
I disagree. Whether or not a woman uses her gifts as God calls her to, she will still be saved. What is equally important is what is at work in those who seek to prevent God’s people from using God’s gifts. For both sides there is a resistance to God’s Holy Spirit that will ultimately affect their lives even if they do not realize it. When we resist God, we receive less of what He is desiring to pour upon us.
”Among those arguing for homosexuality is an argument that God includes the excluded, he sides with the oppressed, he is opposed to those with power.
But what they are forgetting is that practicing homosexuality is sin. There is no comparison with women desiring to obey God and use their gifts. Neither being a practicing woman, nor actively teaching or preaching to fellow humans are matters of sin. Humans are truly amazing creatures in that we can take almost any few building blocks of ideas and put them together somehow forming a bridge or building of sorts. And dialoguing with people who do that is equally ‘interesting’.
“But I
think synod would find it hard to vote for a candidate for Archbishop who didn’t make it clear he would be prepared to continue licensing women accordingly even if his convictions were otherwise.
For an overwhelmingly comp diocese, I think that’s pretty gracious. It falls far short of what egals want – they want women priests. But it’s
giving official recognition to a practice many in the Diocese think is sin. And I think you can find that elsewhere in comp circles, even if it’s not the rule.”
It is indeed gracious. It is also something I’ve never before heard of among hierarchalists or comps.
If you are willing to buy a car, you will have to receive the personal loans. Moreover, my father usually uses a short term loan, which seems to be really fast.
Hi David,
Welcome along, and thanks for this contribution. http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_4/#5732 Sorry it’s taken me so long to get to it – I’m really swamped with the comments at the moment, and having to triage older comments versus active conversations.
From what you’ve written here, I suspect that you and I could be very much on the same page. I could be wrong, but I think what I’m trying to do in my talking about reexaming our notions of authority and submission in my conversation with Kristen in thread three is along the lines of where you’re pointing here.
It depends a bit, as it always does, on these two crux passages you’ve highlighted Matthew 20:25-29, and Eph 5:25-28. Those two passages are critical to the two different approaches to authority that I think are up for grabs between some egalitarians on the one side, and other egalitarians and complementarians on the other. They are interpreted in very different ways, hence why they are crux passages.
If you’re pointing to those passages to say, “Love and self-sacrifice not authority – those are two alternative routes” then we are in profound disagreement. But if you’re saying “Love and self-sacrifice is the way in which authority is exercised, and shapes the kind of authority that it is” then I think we’re very much on the same page, and your .02 dollars is what I’m going to carefully and slowly try and argue for next year.
Either way, you’ve pointed to two of the key texts IMO. So thank you.
Hi Dave,
I realise that the conversation has moved on, but I’ve been wanting to field this for a while:
Yes, I was referring to the ESS debate. And if you haven’t heard egals say that, then you haven’t been following even all the comments on these threads (which, given how many there are is hardly a criticism).
Kristen said at http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_31/#5612 :
Kristen clearly knows her way around the doctrine of the Trinity, as shown by her comments at http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_31/#5832 .
And her opening statement was an unqualified statement that ESS was a new heresy not derived from the Nicene Creed.
I have had similar comments made by egals who have put some thought into this important doctrine both in person and by email. I think Giles comes very, very close to saying the same thing in The Trinity and Subordinationism even if someone might argue that he formally stops short of making the equation explicitly.
Similarly, if you cast your eye over the quote I provided here: http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_31/#5710 you’ll see a list of the kind of rhetoric used about that debate. I’m sure some of the language he is bewailing comes from comps, even though I have no first hand knowledge of it. But I do have first hand knowledge that some of the worst offenders in his list comes from egals.
So, no context based communication strategy here. There are egalitarians saying what I claimed. There’s even, I suspect, some complementarians saying it.
And, for what it’s worth, depending on the egalitarian model of the Trinity I’m presented with, I’d probably use the same language too. If someone starts talking about how the Godhead is a community of persons of mutual love and submission, where their roles in the economy of salvation were determined by a pre-creation vote of some kind (and some egals have said that) I am going to go simply ape. It’s got nothing to do with the gender debate. Such a view is tritheism, even when it appears in complementarian circles (as I think it has at times, or close to it). It is brutally beyond the bounds of orthodoxy.
I’m not saying that the rhetoric cannot be used at all. I’m saying that using it really raises the stakes and makes structural unity very, very difficult to continue over the long term. And that language has and is being used in this debate by mainstream leaders.
Use the biggest guns available to win a theological battle if you want. But don’t be surprised if you have scorched earth as a consequence. Only use the biggest guns if it requires a scorched earth policy. Calibrate the rhetoric to the seriousness of the issue.
And for those wanting to use small bore weapons to fight this battle, be aware that there are leaders on your side hunting gazelles with WMDs. And that has an effect on the political possibilities for structural unity.
Hi Martin,
Well, this is one of those issues I’m going to try and bring out carefully on both sides and discuss next year. But since you’ve raised it this way here, here’s a brief interaction from the other side:
Let’s look at the polemical language used in the third paragraph: “dismissed” “deceptive” “assumes a particular anachronistic hermeneutic which is implicitly applied to the text without warrant or justification”. Keep that in mind with the strength of my language in response.
Let’s then stand back and look at what you’re saying:
1) slavery discussions in the 19th Century went wrong because they read their cultural experience back into the text. What looked like the plain meaning of the text was no such thing (such a thing doesn’t really exist, if by ‘plain meaning’ you’re trying to bypass the need for a good grasp of the cultural context of the ancient world).
2) Similarly the gender debate is suffering from the same problem – our experience of gender and church structure is not necessarily the same as what the NT is speaking about. The ‘plain sense’ that it is is just an illusion that might be blown away by better grasp of modern gender structures and ancient gender structures.
My response would be, “okay, let’s say you’re right. Why on earth would we stop with these two examples? Is modern homosexual and heterosexual structures the same as ancient ones? Are modern concerns for saying Jesus is the only way to God the same as ancient ones? Are modern concerns that God exists the same as ancient ones?”
It’s not like the Bible singles out gender and slavery and says, “now, if you’re reading this in a few hundred years time, be careful not to commit any anachronisms – but when Jesus says, “love one another” you can relax there because the ‘plain sense’ does apply in that case.”
In practice, if you are right, there is nothing that a modern Christian can be sure of when they read the Bible. Anything that appears to have direct meaning to today might just be a product of anachronistically reading a modern experience into the ancient text.
The only people who can tell the rest of us what the text means today are those who are experts in modern social science (who understand the modern phenomena of human existence) and the ancient world’s thought patterns, beliefs, and cultural structures. For everyone else the Bible is a completely closed book.
When some of us throwbacks get just a little upset and speak of ‘hermeneutical legerdemain, with the objectors preferring the “plain reading” of the text or “exegesis not hermeneutics”’ it’s not just naiviety on our part. There is a big theological reason for it. The Bible has not been given by God to the hands of a magisterium – either a sacerdotally distinct group of Spirit-annointed doctors of the Church, or a group of expert biblical studies scholars who have training and licensing that sets them apart from ordinary Christians.
The Bible has been given to the Church as a whole and to every member in it. It can be read by anyone and understood by anyone sufficiently to know God and live a life that pleases him. And that is simply incompatible with the utter rejection of natural sense that you’re advocating here. It’s a Reformation principle we’re fighting for here.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for responding. I feel these are important issues which are all too often dismissed or overlooked. I’d like to make a couple of points in response:
1. I actually had in mind slavery discussions in the 21st century, not the 19th. I’m not overly familiar with the latter.
2.
These are all valid and relevant questions, despite the fact that you’d like to use them to dismiss the argument. Do you object to men in church with long hair (1Cor 11:14)? Most do not, largely as a result of cultural changes. The simple assumption that these have no bearing on our understanding of the text is dangerous. Examining these issues and their bearing on what the Bible says about homosexuality, how we are to love one another, how to treat slaves, how old the Earth is, or what women in our churches can and cannot do is essential. If appeals to the “plain meaning” of the text circumvent asking these questions, then such appeals are dangerous.
Now it might be that, for many issues, we discover the significance of the changes in culture (and remember, culture and language are themselves intertwined) have little bearing on the meaning we derive from the text. Nonetheless, ignoring the difference and not asking the questions are problematic.
The fact is that 99% of readers of the Bible throughout the world do rely on such people! Unless you read the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek you rely on experts. These experts, if they are truly experts, must be familiar with the language and culture of both the source and receptor languages. And even if you read the original languages, you often rely on experts to have reconstructed an eclectic text correctly, and you’ll always have relied on experts to have learnt the languages and (hopefully) something of the culture as well.
Hi Mark,
You wrote
I agree with this and reject the idea that complementarianism is ethically similar to slavery. From what I have seen of complementarians (and I was at Moore for 3 years so I saw a fair bit) they were seeking, above all else, to be faithful to Scripture. However, I think that parallels exist between the 19th Century argument for slavery and the complementarian argument.
Firstly there is the ‘this has always been the understanding of the church’. While tradition needs to be considered carefully it is not the ultimate authority. I would think that our understanding of Genesis 1 is a little different to that of the early church if for no other reason than that most of us don’t accept a Ptolemaic model of the Universe.
Secondly there is the fact that some of the arguments from Scripture used by the anti-abolitionists seem similar to those used by some complementarians. For example, Jesus never spoke against it. There is also a use of the household tables that has similarities with the complementarian usage.
Martin, if you want more info on 19th Century arguments the book Cotton is King is in Moore College Library. It was an antiabolitionist book with 2 chapters on the Scriptural case for slavery. The second chapter is by Charles Hodge. Interestingly both chapters seem to be arguing that provided owning slaves is lawful, Christians are permitted to do so,ie it’s not sinful, rather than that it is a good thing.
Hi Teri,
No, wasn’t the time or place. I was simply ‘outing’ myself as someone of whom it could also be said that I used strong language in my criticism of the opposite view. There’s been hints in different comments I’ve done, but I’ve left it for later to start to make a substantive case.
Perhaps. If you can provide a solid quote from Bilezikian that indicates that he was referring to the Quivering Movement and complementarianism generally, then we can strike this from the evidence.. But it is Bilezikian we are talking about. It’s not like he hasn’t got form on this. If he plays golf the way he discusses this issue, he must try and put the ball from a half metre out using a driver.
No. Really isn’t. The whole book is intended to climax with the Sydney Diocese as the guys in the cross hairs.
Seriously? Peter Kirk is talking about complementarians in the Church of England – most of whose leaders are educated in upper class private schools (called public schools). These aren’t deep south independents or baptists, they’re people of privilege and respectability. The Quivering movement isn’t even a gleam in the eye in these kind of circles.
Yes, so you agree with me there.
This is where there may be a difference in how we use the word ‘gospel’. I’m not saying that these egalitarians say you must believe in egalitarianism to be saved. I’m saying that they see Christ’s redemptive work as including within it either the elimination of patriarchy, or the elimination of all hierarchy and authority. So the ‘gospel’ (the message of Christ’s saving us from sin and sin’s effects) includes patriarchy or even all authority as something that should disappear in the Church as the cross of Christ holds sway. That’s what I mean by ‘a gospel issue’.
Hi Martin,
You’re welcome, as always you put your finger on something really fundamental in a large debate. I’m just looking forward to a day when we’re on the same side.
I take your points, especially about the need for scholarship to get Bibles into people’s hands. Well said, and important point. I’m going to try and put the two positions and what they’re trying to uphold about the nature of Scripture next year, and then why I back one over the other. Now, down a fair way into a common thread, is not the best place to try and do that.
For the moment I’ll just assert that I’m as likely to concede the bigger issue on that basis as I am to acccept that because bishops in council declared which books made up the Christian canon, therefore the authority to interpret Scipture lies in their hands and those teachers they authorise.
I argue for the role of tradition, as you know. And I’m happy to give a role to scholarship. I’m not happy to relinquish the notion of a ‘natural sense’ or relinquish the privileging of exegesis over hermeneutics.
No argument there, I’ll just flag my position, and desire to try and create a structure for a decent canvassing of the big issues next year.
Hi Amanda,
A very warm welcome along, good to ‘see’ you after these years.
Heh, it is getting a bit surreal. Sentences we never thought we’d utter:
Person: Hello, my name is X and I reject the idea that complementarianism is ethcially similar to slavery.
Help Group: Hello X!
Still, probably good to get some of these things out there so we don’t talk at cross-purposes.
Yep, I think all of that’s a fair call. It’s why I said that that both criticisms need to be set up and discussed: complementarianism shares features of race-based slave defenses, and egalitarianism shares features of pro-homosexuality arguments.
Both of those are quite reasonable to make based on appearances, and so it’s worth batting around whether both/one/neither has some/much/no weight. And, again, on the agenda for next year.
This is what’s going to interest me when we have the debate. If that’s all that is being argued by “slavery apologists” I might find it hard to disagree with them.
To say otherwise is to say that Paul was allowing people to sin by regulating the practice in the household codes when he should have called on them to free them on the spot.
I can see an argument to say, “Under these circumstances Christians must put all their enegry into the elimination of slavery,” but if we are ever faced again with the reintroduction of some form of widespread slavery with the full support and belief of society as a whole, Christians might again find that a nuanced position like you’re saying Hodge is offering: “The institution isn’t good, but if it’s there then there’s more options open to you than ‘just say no’” is a better way through the woods than the alternative.
When dealing with social structures sometimes you can’t go from bad to good directly, but have to create the other features in society that make a different way of doing things possible. In working that out you need to be able to distinguish “this is always wrong” (e.g murder) from “this isn’t good, but is lawful under certain circumstances” (e.g. divorce, or slavery, or even abortion for those of us who think it is genuinely justifiable when there is genuine risk to the mother’s life).
Hi Mark, thanks for the posts.
Is martin really arguing for a magesterium, of biships or scholars? Or simply that everyone has to do a bit of theology (or have it done for them) to get from 1st century palestine to 21st century Australia. i remember Don Robinson telling people off for applying his NT work on baptism to current church practice, as though nothing had happened since. Homosexual practice may well be different now to the first century, and we could still condemn the practice as sinful.
But since you want to go with this strange beast called the ‘plain reading’, the question has to be asked, whose plain reading? Especially when it comes to issues of gender and submission, the plain reading of christians in say, egypt, is vastly, vastly different to the plain reading of most aussie comps, even CBMW. Why should we privellege our cultures plain reading? Or if we shouldn’t, then why not do some hermeneutical work on the text to see what it was saying to it’s culture?
martin is right to raise translation as an issue, as it seems the most strident comps seem to come from traditions that think it is possible for words in different cultures and times to have the exact same semantic range
Hi Mike,
You’re welcome for the posts, welcome along.
No, I’m sure Martin doesn’t intend that. But a strong and sweeping dismissal of natural sense in any discipline that involves reading texts has to have that as its necessary effect. The average reader cannot know if they’re getting it right, they are hugely dependent on experts to do the work for them.
You do realise that up until relatively recently no-one in any field of humanities would consider ‘plain reading’ a strange beast? The basic view was that it was a relatively straight-forward task to understand people from other cultures and from previous eras – while we mightn’t get all the nuances and details, we could get the basic gist.
There are still people who, despite post-modernism, teach the history of philosophy and deliberately give no biographical details of the key philosophers – just have their students read the texts and discuss the ideas and arguments?
Seriously, given how ‘natural sense’ is linked to the concept of the clarity of Scripture, it never ceases to amaze me how egalitarians can label it a ‘strange beast’ and then claim that their view of Scripture is a classical Protestant one.
I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. I’d say, without a concept of “plain reading” this task you want us to do can only be undertaken by experts. A natural sense is what democraticises these interpretative tasks and allows them to be undertaken by Joe Average, and authorises them by pushing the task back to the text itself and not scholars’ theorising about present and past cultures.
Don’t think I claimed it wasn’t an issue. Just that I’m not going to accept that that means that it’s basically in the hands of scholars.
I think the implications of my observations are that interpretation does not lie exclusively in the domain of the individual. It is shared among a broader cohort under the guidance of the Spirit within which no individual can command absolute authority.
This is a little misleading. It involves only disciplines which read foreign texts, where foreign encompasses linguistically foreign, culturally foreign, or chronologically foreign, or any combination of these. In all these instances the assumption that readers recognise a common “natural sense” in the text is unsubstantiated. It might be true of some texts, it is demonstrably not true of other texts. The problem is the unexamined assumption that it is true.
Consequently the individual must interact with others to complete the process of accurate understanding. Whatever you like to think, this goes on implicitly when you read a translation, given that experts invest their expertise in the translated text. It even goes on implicitly when you read the original language texts, given that experts have taught you to understand the language and experts have reconstructed the texts in the absence of the autographs.
The fact that we get “the basic gist” reflects a degree of commonality in human experience. But you’ve conceded that it is not exhaustive, and it is the points where it fails us that controversy is most likely. Furthermore, assuming without examination that your “plain reading” of a passage is correct at a certain point simply assumes the conclusion without proof.
At this point perhaps I ought to note that I am undecided on the comp/egal issue. During Dave Woolcott’s “Blog Conference” I spent my time questioning the proposed egal exegesis. I see too many unanswered questions on both sides to be able to happily decide one way or the other. My concerns over the perspicuity of Scripture lie in the failure of its proponents to account for translation in the process of transmission of Scripture and the manner in which it is often used to dismiss complexity and assert a “plain reading” which generally coincides with the proponent’s particular view.
Of course the other issue is whether we are going to assume the validity of a “classical Protestant” doctrine without question? That’s hardly a protestant methodology!
Unless each different average Joe reads the text and derives from it a different meaning. Then they’re pushed back to the experts.
”I think the implications of my observations are that interpretation does not lie exclusively in the domain of the individual. It is shared among a broader cohort under the guidance of the Spirit within which no individual can command absolute authority.”
Martin,
Agreed, yet I would qualify it further. Paul praised the Bereans because they listened and then judged for themselves. Not everyone has to understand everything. What things need to be understood by certain individuals God will work at getting them the understanding they need. God determines this with us.
When you speak of interpretations shared among a broader group, you infer the teachers, preachers, leaders of bodies of believers. These individuals are the ones through whom God will speak to fellow believers and who are charged with influencing and convincing fellow believers of what they need to do to draw close to God. The hearers are to listen and be willing to be persuaded (Hebrew 13:17 and peithesthe, be being persuaded) , yet still must check what is preached/taught them. This IMO is the balance. Otherwise, we have the Pope and Luther at odds all over again.
Hi Arthur,
You’re welcome. I’ve appreciated your contribution.
Try and thin the herd, so the One True Complementarianism reigns supreme. (That’s my view, of course.)
Tar and feathers? No, wait! Wrong Answer….Ah that’s right. Get them to take on my view, the One True Complementarianism.
You noticed that too? That was interesting.
I’ve kind of hinted at this issue in different ways in the comments and the posts, but was leaving it until later.
It matters a lot whether you think things like ‘authority is about what acts you can and can’t do’ or ‘authority is about what relationships you can and can’t be in’. Those two are closely related, but an ‘act’ based complementarianism will have bigger problems with divergent practices.
Martin (and Grudem) have gestured at another factor. To what degree the main thing that interests you in this debate is the use of the Bible. For many complementarians, they speak as though they aren’t interested in a constructive theology (or theory) of gender, or authority, or equality, or love – none of the theological content of the debate is of interest to them in its own right. All that matters is the kind of hermeneutic involved. In the soundbite we’ve gotten from Martin Pakula and how he’s described Grudem’s position that’s kind of where they are (more info may provide more nuances).
Clearly, that’s not my take on things, and that’s partly because I don’t think this is a fight over the authority of the Bible first and foremost. It’s not like the inerrancy or infallibility fights where Scripture is the issue in its own right. It’s more like the Reformation. That was a fight over the gospel, that entailed an important fight over the word of God. Here the content of the debate really matters, but a view of Scripture is entailed by both postions and so it spreads out to that issue as well.
But, yeah, other complementarians will disagree and say, “No, it’s all about hermeneutics, stupid.” And that will probably lead some of them to put the boundaries somewhere else.
Yes and no. There was lots of diversity within the pro-Nicene camp. There was lots of diversity within the Protestant camp – and guys like Luther didn’t recognise guys like Zwingli as being on the same team. And in both debates there are even some funny outliers that are hard to put in any camp clearly. The tendency at the moment is to try and give a lot of weight to that diversity – “European Reformations”, not just “the Reformation”.
Whether that diversity ends up in multiple divides is hard to say. I think it is possible that the egals will divide up into the ‘pro-homosexual egal evangelicals’ (already beginning here in the UK in the Church of England, as far as I can see), and the ‘anti-homosexual egal evangelicals’. There’ll possibly be another division between those who are seeking a way of doing Church where no-one has authority over anyone else, and those who want some people to have authority in Church, but for gender not to be a factor.
It’s possible comps will have similar divisions if they decide that the practice is the key issue and so ‘women can preach’ is the dividing line. But if comps (or most comps) decide that a commitment to the perspicuity of Scripture, and to one of a range of possible views on the nature of authority, equality, gender and love, is the key issue then the division will be a lot less within complementarianism.
“There’ll possibly be another division between those who are seeking a way of doing Church where no-one has authority over anyone else, and those who want some people to have authority in Church, but for gender not to be a factor.”
It would be good if you could define clearly what this authority is that you believe women are forbidden to exercise.
Not everything work when you are going to get academic success. But, I state that one thing can help you! You ought to contact online essay writers, because it can aid surely.