Egalitarians treat us as exceptions or inconvenient data points to be done away with. Our carefully considered convictions are casually dismissed by the claim that we simply haven’t considered or understood the arguments yet. Our ministry is discounted, our theological judgements are patronised, and our existence is written out of the story.
I get a bit frustrated when I hear egalitarians act like we just haven't done enough research as complementarian women. I grew up under a "complementarianism" that was more sexism hiding under the umbrella than anything else. My father believed he could marry me to whomever he wanted (with or without my consent) and also that, as his daughter, I belonged to him (in his words) "like slaves belong to their master." So when I left home (I had to flee, leave the state, and go into hiding), I was very keen on becoming egalitarian. I don't think it's an overstatement to say I felt like my faith hinged quite heavily on becoming egalitarian. And in pursuit of that, I read every egalitarian book on the topic that I could get my hands on. And I talked to every egalitarian I could talk to. And then I studied the Scriptures. And then more books. And more conversations. And more Bible study. And to my great dismay, I ended up a complementarian. I didn't end up there because I wanted to. I didn't just read my "side" and say, "Yeah that sounds right." I was desperately trying to escape my "side". I was heavily heavily heavily biased towards believing the egalitarian side. But based on their own best arguments, I just could not get there. Fortunately my studies along the way gave me a complementarianism that is, if anything, entirely anti-sexist and a total opposite to my parent's beliefs. And now my faith is stronger than ever and I'm a leader in my church. But damn, its irritating when they act like if we just read this or that book, we'd understand. Because I've read most of them. Every one that was recommended to me certainly. And they, and my own studies (and to date not a single complementarian book) made me a settled complementarian (still a little begrudgingly at times 😅).
Well done you for doing the hard work! I just wonder if where you have landed - if it really is the opposite of what your parents believed re men and women's roles - is actually still hierarchical complementarianism? Especially given you now have a leadership role at church.
My position is still hierarchical complementarianism, yes. And my leadership role at my church is not as a pastor or an elder so I'm not sure how that contradicts my complementarianism. And I say my position is the opposite of my parents beliefs because their beliefs are actually just plain old ugly sexism and misogyny pretending to be a biblical complementarianism. From my studies, I am convinced that there is no place for sexism or misogyny in complementarianism. They are the true opposite of our position as complementarians and they are antithetical to God and to his church.
I'm curious how you come to feel ok with a theological view that you're convinced of but desperately wanted to not be true. I struggle with this in many different areas of theology (admittedly complicated by a tendency to scrupulosity or assuming that whatever I want must be dangerous because I want it), and I have never really resolved things but have rather held in tension the possibility of being wrong and just disagreeing with God on values, while practically deconstructing and moving forward with reframed understandings that I can call good in emotional sincerity, without actually being willing to definitively say they are correct because of the fear of being wrong. But a lot of this process seems to hinge on the emotional cost of the more conservative view being too high for it to be true - sort of how MacDonald argues for universalism by appealing to the idea that God must be good and must save all in order to be as good as we must find Him to be (I'm mangling that summary).
The simple answer, although it probably will come across as somewhat trite in my simplifying it and I apologise for that, is that I believe that God is God and he has all the authority and power and knowledge to do and say whatever he pleases. He is God. And I am not. So anytime he and I come into conflict over a belief or doctrine or I feel he must be wrong, I must first acknowledge that he is God and like it says in Job, he does not answer to me and my puny understanding of the world. He knows all that can be known and will ever be known about every single thing so I do not get to sit in judgement of God and say, "Well I don't like what you're doing there." It is by his standard that all else is measured. Right is not right unless God says it is right. And wrong is not wrong unless he says it is wrong. And importantly, God is good and all goodness is measured against his goodness. If something seemingly good is contrary to what God says, than it is not good. So with this issue of complementarianism, I started by telling God how complex and huge this issue felt for me (in depth... several Job-length diatribes on the matter in fact! 😅) and then committed to trust him and follow him to whichever conclusion Scripture led me to, even if I didn't like the answer. I wanted to know as best as I could ascertain what was true... what did Scripture say. I believe that is really the only honest place to start a search for truth. You cannot truly search for truth if you refuse to accept certain answers or must have them only on your own terms. So in any issue I'm struggling with, where I can, I research and I study the Scriptures and I get advice, but at the end of the day, when I've read the books and wrestled with the texts and had the talks, I must simply submit to the answer as I understand it. God is God. God is good. God knows best. And I trust him. Even when its uncomfortable... or as in the case of comp vs. egal. downright triggering. And, as in the comp/egal issue, I have found enormous peace and a stronger faith through the journey. God can be trusted. I am now in a place where I believe wholeheartedly that what we call complementarianism is not only biblical, but also beautiful.
"It is by his standard that all else is measured. Right is not right unless God says it is right. And wrong is not wrong unless he says it is wrong. And importantly, God is good and all goodness is measured against his goodness. If something seemingly good is contrary to what God says, than it is not good."
I think this is maybe the nub of the disagreement, because while in a sense I agree with this - that our idea of right and wrong, our sense of it, emanates from God - I also want to agree with things that Lewis and MacDonald have said that complicate this by arguing that Good as defined by God must on some level concur with Good as we rightly come to feel it, and as we all really know it to be. And, I think I always go into a defensive posture around this sort of thing, because I assume for the sake of argument that I'm unwilling to concur with whatever is forced on me, and unwilling to abandon my values - so then I worry about salvation, and that creates a situation where it's impossible to be calm about anything.
I am unable to have your faith in the inherent rightness of one's own values, I'm afraid. If history has taught us anything, humans are ever capable of convincing themselves of the good in the worst and most horrific things humanity has ever seen. Through my work, I have talked with pedophiles who truly believe that their abuse of children is a beautiful and good thing. We are far too easily swayed in our values by what we want, our biases, and even just misinformation. What God says is good, however, is not impacted by our feelings on any given day. It is stable. It is trustworthy. It is infallible.
I definitely am not confident about the rightness of my own values, I'm not putting that correctly I suppose. I think what I'm trying to work through is both how to approach God and be saved if one also feels unwilling to not feel differently than one feels; and, also, the idea that the horrible things that are wrong that humans find beautiful are somehow going to dissolve into what they actually were finding beautiful behind that - or somehow all our desires are redeemed. But I'm not saying I'm confident in that, it's more that's what I'm expressing as my emotional position when approaching God and speaking.
I forgot to mention: You don't have to be 100% certain you are right on an issue. For most things, it is healthy to leave room for the possibility that you have it not quite right. But that doesn't mean you can't plant your feet where you believe God has led you to on an issue and say, "As best as I can understand it in all sincerity before God, I believe this to be true and what God has said and I'm going to live it out until God or someone else convinces me through Scripture that I'm not quite in the right spot on this and I need to adjust where I'm at."
I would definitely resist ever saying that I'm speaking in all sincerity, in terms of intellectual conviction - I try to limit statements like that to my will and feelings.
As an egalitarian, let me say thanks for this challenge. I completely agree that it’s absurd to claim complementarianism is only held by people who haven’t studied enough yet. I just published an article responding to Al Mohler claiming egalitarianism is just liberalism caving to culture without any biblical or theological consideration. That’s wrong to say of the “other side,” regardless of who says it.
If a farmer goes out into two fields to sow daisy and tulip seeds, and if one field produces hundreds of each flower growing together, while the other field produces hundreds of daisies, but just a few tulips, it is good and right to question why the second field wasn’t hospitable to tulips. That’s not to say the tulips that *did* grow in that field are inconvenient data points. The tulips are the goal, just like the daisies. We just want more of them.
Thanks for your considered approach as always. I think though I'd make the same point as I did on your last post, that it's the 'brand' of complementarianism that I find so troubling. I'm mutualist (not particularly happy anymore with egalitarian phrasing) but go to a soft complementarian church where women can preach, lead and be involved in all spaces in ministry apart from being a named elder. I have my peace with this because I love my church family. I dont know what sort of church you attend Dani but you're an ordained Deacon I believe? So perhaps soft comp too? My observation is that in debates like this there seems to be huge strawmanning, and on each 'side' the primary arguments are about the extreme ends of the scale. I take issue with SBC (insofar as its the principle seeing as I'm not American, Baptist or comp) because they seem extreme in their dismissal and dare I say it, oppression of women. Doug Wilson and the like do a great job of making a strong case for jumping over the fence and I wonder how many 'average' comps would claim him as their own?! I'm not sure who the 'monster' is on my side of the field, guessing the more liberal end of the scale (maybe some C of E churches) and my guess is that I would have more conservative views than them! I think through my studies I've come to realise that between reasonable, Jesus loving people, there's less difference than the big strawman arguments would have us believe... and all they do is keep us divided. I have a mutualist orthodoxy, you have a comp orthodoxy and I respect that.
I think this is fair, and I'm sorry for my part in making you feel dismissed.
I would be interested to hear about what healthy engagement would be like for you, or if you're looking to say that you're uninterested in any debate at all. For what it's worth, I think your very clear competence is exactly what makes bringing things up worthwhile—because you'll have thoughtful things to say—but I can also understand being in a place where you're just done with those topics.
Strong title! But maybe it is time for both sides to stop all the undermining (you haven’t done the research properly, you don’t have a good theological basis for your position, holding your position is harmful for x, y and z) and consider the real problem we face. If we accept there are two well founded biblical positions, what do we do about that? The current outworking of these two positions means that there are swathes of people are unhappy - the mutualists who see women being silenced and potentially harmed (this is what my own research looked at) and the complementarians who see any further moves towards role equality as unbiblical, sinful etc. What is the real solution to dealing with these two apparently opposing views?
Oh Dani - I stand rebuked. It was a short, sharp response which did sound patronising. And I absolutely appreciate your intelligent and thorough work - as I do the wonderful complementarian women teachers I am about to listen to again at Equip. I still value the wisdom of many of my former bible teachers and draw on it for my own prep. And I know God is doing great things in complementarian churches, and there are many unharmed, productive and valued women in those churches too. I reject the idea that comp husbands are typically brutes - I know too many lovely ones. (I'd argue they were living out Ephesians 5 in the spirit of mutuality, not hierarchy.) In my strict Pressy church, though, I feel restricted and frustrated. I must sit through poorly considered sermons whilst being unable to use the gift of teaching I was given. I can't even lead a service - while men with far less theological training or leadership ability get the gig. In addition, the cracks in the intellectual framework underpinning hard-line hierarchical complementarianism seem too great, and I really have found the Bible has become brighter and more coherent with that framework replaced - not by feminism - but by mutuality, acknowledging difference but rejecting hierarchy. Is this a possible middle way - something others call soft-comp?
I kinda get that- have stepped away from getting involved in the music recently too for that reason. Heard a similar discussion re who’s best placed to read the Bible. But gets a bit stretched when it comes to key roles and squashing people whom God has gifted. Would the reverse situation be a thing ie hold back the talented guys so the less gifted women can shine?
Many years ago, I started doing a weekly “kids’ spot” at my church. After I had been doing it for a while, the pastors & I decided that it would be good to get more of the fathers involved. Specifically inviting fathers targeted several goals: it gave lay men a chance to step try up, it provided them a structure where they could practice, it provided their kids an opportunity to see their fathers leading in a minor but formal Christian context, it set an example & encouragement for other fathers, it made a statement that ministry to kids was not just women’s work, it let the dads work on something together that was primarily social rather than practical. The bar was low-ish - it needed to be theologically sound, short, entertaining, and deliver one key point that the kids could relate to.
One of the mothers at our church is extremely talented - very organised, very charismatic, loves kids. She asked if she could join the roster & was miffed when I refused. This wasn’t about ability - she would have done a superior delivery without trying, and she would try! And her reasons weren’t about competence or judging the men. She loves kids, she loves kids ministry, and she wanted to contribute. But having her step into “Dads’ amateur time” and shine would have worked against our meta-goals. Very soon our “step up and do kids ministry” for dads would be taken over by talented women.
The three installment series is well done, thank you. I confess I no longer hold to a hierarchical comp (HC) understanding of the Scriptures although I have been in SBC-CBMW affirming churches for nearly 40 years. My present understanding has not come quickly or easily because I hold to a high view of Scripture. Non-hierarchical complementarianism (or, NHC; which I think is a better label for what I--and many biblical egalitarians--believe) is fraught with misunderstanding and misrepresentation. It is rare for anyone, but most especially a woman, who holds to this position not to be dismissed, or worse. For example, in the CBMW podcast you referenced, Mohler definitively and forcefully equates acceptance of women in pulpits with a slippery slope progression into LGBTQ liberalism. Many times NHC women are dismissed as power-hungry radically feminist misandrists who have no grasp of the plain reading of Scripture. It can get quite ugly.
So, I appreciate how it feels to a woman who holds to a thoughtful conviction of HC to bear with the arguments coming from biblical egalitarian scholars and theologians. For me, those arguments were not only convincing, but helpful and life-giving (in many senses). Still, this matter is deeply disruptive if you hold to any position with conviction. You have given me something to think about: How can we engage in serious conversation without being dismissive or inconsiderate? Or, can we? I think the SBC (among other entities)is pushing for the answer to be, decisively: "No!"
I came to this article through Tim Challies site, and very thankful I did. You put into words exactly what I think. I did a four part series on this issue (before SBC decision) and later, one in which I defended having a female chaplain at a Christian children's camp. Yes, I am a complementarian. I despise these labels and suggested there's middle ground here: complemengarian.
Looking in from the outside, are women in complementarianism made invisible because egalitarians and others don't see them, or count their ministries as outliers or because they're listening to the complementarian narrative that women are invisible, soft h helpers to their men? Can we blame egalitarians for listening to and believing what complementarian men say about women? The strictest rule is always applied across denominations. What the SBC does in the States will spread to the world--I'm never done telling this to the pastors here in Northern Ireland who think that the American Church has lost its mind, but it isn't removed even a little bit from what they are practising.
There is a principle in technology development that when a new technology takes over the market, the skills needed to use that technology well are found in the previous technology. For instance, Radio copy editors were the first screenwriters and were brilliant because they were used to writing strong dialogue without visual aids; the same applied to silent films: actors who had the experience of not having a voice had stronger facial acting ability and directional messaging. In this way, a strong, independent woman is not made less strong or independent by choosing complementarianism, but subsequent generations of women are increasingly made subordinate to male oversight and rule. A man possessed of great virtue who chooses to believe in complementarianism doesn't cease to be a man of great virtue, but the virtues that make him a great man are greatly diminished when his sons inherit the world he gives them without developing those self-same virtues he developed while not complementarian.
Complementarianism is like socialism; it only works when paired with a strong democracy--remove meaningful equality, chip away at democracy (which many Com. men are doing), and what we have is 100% Grade A Patriarchy.
Thank you Dani. Very thoughtful. Speaking of traditional women being cancelled I'm reminded of when the Episcopal Church in the U.S. abolished the lay orders of deaconesses and, if one reads the history, many women wanted to stay in that office. There are bad traditional actors no doubt. But the beautiful display of glory we find in gender diversity throughout the biblical narrative and in the apostolic teaching reveals God wishes women to flourish and Jesus wishes His bride to flourish. Preston Sprinkle has it backwards. The whole narrative from Genesis to Revelation reveals a beautiful diversity not a sameness. Esther, as a type of the church submits to her king and her petition is answered, the Queen of Psalm 45 displays glory and her King delights in her. The "wife" of Proverbs 31 brings glory and honor to her family and her husband who is "praised" in the gate. "The bride is adorned for her husband."
Egalitarians do not erase gender distinction, or at least the ones who truly are grounding their views in scripture. By characterizing their arguments as such you're kind of painting them all with the same brush Dani accuses us of using on complimentarians. We deny that a distinction in gender prescribes a distinction (and really an inequality) in role.
Based on Gen 1 and Gen 2. Much in the same way that Dani doesn't find egalitarian readings convincing, we do not find complimentarian readings convincing.
That being said, I think the root issue of the conflict lies in the insistence that only our subjective views are correct. I for myself, would advocate that complimentarian and egalitarian churches should teach both views as options and let each individual decide for themselves. That way, no woman would be making an uninformed choice to abide by complimentarian theology, and no egalitarian would be so ignorant of complimentarian theology as to straw man it as having no valid arguments. (Something that many complimentarians also do to egalitarians, and much in the same way that Dani feels comp women are often erased from view in egal arguments, comps are often quick to assume the egal congregations and marriages are filled with passive, feminized men, as though the two possible options for male behavior are unilateral authority or passivity)
I get a bit frustrated when I hear egalitarians act like we just haven't done enough research as complementarian women. I grew up under a "complementarianism" that was more sexism hiding under the umbrella than anything else. My father believed he could marry me to whomever he wanted (with or without my consent) and also that, as his daughter, I belonged to him (in his words) "like slaves belong to their master." So when I left home (I had to flee, leave the state, and go into hiding), I was very keen on becoming egalitarian. I don't think it's an overstatement to say I felt like my faith hinged quite heavily on becoming egalitarian. And in pursuit of that, I read every egalitarian book on the topic that I could get my hands on. And I talked to every egalitarian I could talk to. And then I studied the Scriptures. And then more books. And more conversations. And more Bible study. And to my great dismay, I ended up a complementarian. I didn't end up there because I wanted to. I didn't just read my "side" and say, "Yeah that sounds right." I was desperately trying to escape my "side". I was heavily heavily heavily biased towards believing the egalitarian side. But based on their own best arguments, I just could not get there. Fortunately my studies along the way gave me a complementarianism that is, if anything, entirely anti-sexist and a total opposite to my parent's beliefs. And now my faith is stronger than ever and I'm a leader in my church. But damn, its irritating when they act like if we just read this or that book, we'd understand. Because I've read most of them. Every one that was recommended to me certainly. And they, and my own studies (and to date not a single complementarian book) made me a settled complementarian (still a little begrudgingly at times 😅).
Appreciate your response. I am sure more unites us in Jesus than divides us on this topic!
Well done you for doing the hard work! I just wonder if where you have landed - if it really is the opposite of what your parents believed re men and women's roles - is actually still hierarchical complementarianism? Especially given you now have a leadership role at church.
So glad the journey has strengthened your faith.
My position is still hierarchical complementarianism, yes. And my leadership role at my church is not as a pastor or an elder so I'm not sure how that contradicts my complementarianism. And I say my position is the opposite of my parents beliefs because their beliefs are actually just plain old ugly sexism and misogyny pretending to be a biblical complementarianism. From my studies, I am convinced that there is no place for sexism or misogyny in complementarianism. They are the true opposite of our position as complementarians and they are antithetical to God and to his church.
I'm curious how you come to feel ok with a theological view that you're convinced of but desperately wanted to not be true. I struggle with this in many different areas of theology (admittedly complicated by a tendency to scrupulosity or assuming that whatever I want must be dangerous because I want it), and I have never really resolved things but have rather held in tension the possibility of being wrong and just disagreeing with God on values, while practically deconstructing and moving forward with reframed understandings that I can call good in emotional sincerity, without actually being willing to definitively say they are correct because of the fear of being wrong. But a lot of this process seems to hinge on the emotional cost of the more conservative view being too high for it to be true - sort of how MacDonald argues for universalism by appealing to the idea that God must be good and must save all in order to be as good as we must find Him to be (I'm mangling that summary).
The simple answer, although it probably will come across as somewhat trite in my simplifying it and I apologise for that, is that I believe that God is God and he has all the authority and power and knowledge to do and say whatever he pleases. He is God. And I am not. So anytime he and I come into conflict over a belief or doctrine or I feel he must be wrong, I must first acknowledge that he is God and like it says in Job, he does not answer to me and my puny understanding of the world. He knows all that can be known and will ever be known about every single thing so I do not get to sit in judgement of God and say, "Well I don't like what you're doing there." It is by his standard that all else is measured. Right is not right unless God says it is right. And wrong is not wrong unless he says it is wrong. And importantly, God is good and all goodness is measured against his goodness. If something seemingly good is contrary to what God says, than it is not good. So with this issue of complementarianism, I started by telling God how complex and huge this issue felt for me (in depth... several Job-length diatribes on the matter in fact! 😅) and then committed to trust him and follow him to whichever conclusion Scripture led me to, even if I didn't like the answer. I wanted to know as best as I could ascertain what was true... what did Scripture say. I believe that is really the only honest place to start a search for truth. You cannot truly search for truth if you refuse to accept certain answers or must have them only on your own terms. So in any issue I'm struggling with, where I can, I research and I study the Scriptures and I get advice, but at the end of the day, when I've read the books and wrestled with the texts and had the talks, I must simply submit to the answer as I understand it. God is God. God is good. God knows best. And I trust him. Even when its uncomfortable... or as in the case of comp vs. egal. downright triggering. And, as in the comp/egal issue, I have found enormous peace and a stronger faith through the journey. God can be trusted. I am now in a place where I believe wholeheartedly that what we call complementarianism is not only biblical, but also beautiful.
"It is by his standard that all else is measured. Right is not right unless God says it is right. And wrong is not wrong unless he says it is wrong. And importantly, God is good and all goodness is measured against his goodness. If something seemingly good is contrary to what God says, than it is not good."
I think this is maybe the nub of the disagreement, because while in a sense I agree with this - that our idea of right and wrong, our sense of it, emanates from God - I also want to agree with things that Lewis and MacDonald have said that complicate this by arguing that Good as defined by God must on some level concur with Good as we rightly come to feel it, and as we all really know it to be. And, I think I always go into a defensive posture around this sort of thing, because I assume for the sake of argument that I'm unwilling to concur with whatever is forced on me, and unwilling to abandon my values - so then I worry about salvation, and that creates a situation where it's impossible to be calm about anything.
I am unable to have your faith in the inherent rightness of one's own values, I'm afraid. If history has taught us anything, humans are ever capable of convincing themselves of the good in the worst and most horrific things humanity has ever seen. Through my work, I have talked with pedophiles who truly believe that their abuse of children is a beautiful and good thing. We are far too easily swayed in our values by what we want, our biases, and even just misinformation. What God says is good, however, is not impacted by our feelings on any given day. It is stable. It is trustworthy. It is infallible.
I definitely am not confident about the rightness of my own values, I'm not putting that correctly I suppose. I think what I'm trying to work through is both how to approach God and be saved if one also feels unwilling to not feel differently than one feels; and, also, the idea that the horrible things that are wrong that humans find beautiful are somehow going to dissolve into what they actually were finding beautiful behind that - or somehow all our desires are redeemed. But I'm not saying I'm confident in that, it's more that's what I'm expressing as my emotional position when approaching God and speaking.
I forgot to mention: You don't have to be 100% certain you are right on an issue. For most things, it is healthy to leave room for the possibility that you have it not quite right. But that doesn't mean you can't plant your feet where you believe God has led you to on an issue and say, "As best as I can understand it in all sincerity before God, I believe this to be true and what God has said and I'm going to live it out until God or someone else convinces me through Scripture that I'm not quite in the right spot on this and I need to adjust where I'm at."
I would definitely resist ever saying that I'm speaking in all sincerity, in terms of intellectual conviction - I try to limit statements like that to my will and feelings.
As an egalitarian, let me say thanks for this challenge. I completely agree that it’s absurd to claim complementarianism is only held by people who haven’t studied enough yet. I just published an article responding to Al Mohler claiming egalitarianism is just liberalism caving to culture without any biblical or theological consideration. That’s wrong to say of the “other side,” regardless of who says it.
If a farmer goes out into two fields to sow daisy and tulip seeds, and if one field produces hundreds of each flower growing together, while the other field produces hundreds of daisies, but just a few tulips, it is good and right to question why the second field wasn’t hospitable to tulips. That’s not to say the tulips that *did* grow in that field are inconvenient data points. The tulips are the goal, just like the daisies. We just want more of them.
Thanks for your considered approach as always. I think though I'd make the same point as I did on your last post, that it's the 'brand' of complementarianism that I find so troubling. I'm mutualist (not particularly happy anymore with egalitarian phrasing) but go to a soft complementarian church where women can preach, lead and be involved in all spaces in ministry apart from being a named elder. I have my peace with this because I love my church family. I dont know what sort of church you attend Dani but you're an ordained Deacon I believe? So perhaps soft comp too? My observation is that in debates like this there seems to be huge strawmanning, and on each 'side' the primary arguments are about the extreme ends of the scale. I take issue with SBC (insofar as its the principle seeing as I'm not American, Baptist or comp) because they seem extreme in their dismissal and dare I say it, oppression of women. Doug Wilson and the like do a great job of making a strong case for jumping over the fence and I wonder how many 'average' comps would claim him as their own?! I'm not sure who the 'monster' is on my side of the field, guessing the more liberal end of the scale (maybe some C of E churches) and my guess is that I would have more conservative views than them! I think through my studies I've come to realise that between reasonable, Jesus loving people, there's less difference than the big strawman arguments would have us believe... and all they do is keep us divided. I have a mutualist orthodoxy, you have a comp orthodoxy and I respect that.
I think this is fair, and I'm sorry for my part in making you feel dismissed.
I would be interested to hear about what healthy engagement would be like for you, or if you're looking to say that you're uninterested in any debate at all. For what it's worth, I think your very clear competence is exactly what makes bringing things up worthwhile—because you'll have thoughtful things to say—but I can also understand being in a place where you're just done with those topics.
Strong title! But maybe it is time for both sides to stop all the undermining (you haven’t done the research properly, you don’t have a good theological basis for your position, holding your position is harmful for x, y and z) and consider the real problem we face. If we accept there are two well founded biblical positions, what do we do about that? The current outworking of these two positions means that there are swathes of people are unhappy - the mutualists who see women being silenced and potentially harmed (this is what my own research looked at) and the complementarians who see any further moves towards role equality as unbiblical, sinful etc. What is the real solution to dealing with these two apparently opposing views?
Oh Dani - I stand rebuked. It was a short, sharp response which did sound patronising. And I absolutely appreciate your intelligent and thorough work - as I do the wonderful complementarian women teachers I am about to listen to again at Equip. I still value the wisdom of many of my former bible teachers and draw on it for my own prep. And I know God is doing great things in complementarian churches, and there are many unharmed, productive and valued women in those churches too. I reject the idea that comp husbands are typically brutes - I know too many lovely ones. (I'd argue they were living out Ephesians 5 in the spirit of mutuality, not hierarchy.) In my strict Pressy church, though, I feel restricted and frustrated. I must sit through poorly considered sermons whilst being unable to use the gift of teaching I was given. I can't even lead a service - while men with far less theological training or leadership ability get the gig. In addition, the cracks in the intellectual framework underpinning hard-line hierarchical complementarianism seem too great, and I really have found the Bible has become brighter and more coherent with that framework replaced - not by feminism - but by mutuality, acknowledging difference but rejecting hierarchy. Is this a possible middle way - something others call soft-comp?
I kinda get that- have stepped away from getting involved in the music recently too for that reason. Heard a similar discussion re who’s best placed to read the Bible. But gets a bit stretched when it comes to key roles and squashing people whom God has gifted. Would the reverse situation be a thing ie hold back the talented guys so the less gifted women can shine?
All for God’s glory!
Sometimes who is “best” is not the point.
Many years ago, I started doing a weekly “kids’ spot” at my church. After I had been doing it for a while, the pastors & I decided that it would be good to get more of the fathers involved. Specifically inviting fathers targeted several goals: it gave lay men a chance to step try up, it provided them a structure where they could practice, it provided their kids an opportunity to see their fathers leading in a minor but formal Christian context, it set an example & encouragement for other fathers, it made a statement that ministry to kids was not just women’s work, it let the dads work on something together that was primarily social rather than practical. The bar was low-ish - it needed to be theologically sound, short, entertaining, and deliver one key point that the kids could relate to.
One of the mothers at our church is extremely talented - very organised, very charismatic, loves kids. She asked if she could join the roster & was miffed when I refused. This wasn’t about ability - she would have done a superior delivery without trying, and she would try! And her reasons weren’t about competence or judging the men. She loves kids, she loves kids ministry, and she wanted to contribute. But having her step into “Dads’ amateur time” and shine would have worked against our meta-goals. Very soon our “step up and do kids ministry” for dads would be taken over by talented women.
Hi Dani, I'm new here.
The three installment series is well done, thank you. I confess I no longer hold to a hierarchical comp (HC) understanding of the Scriptures although I have been in SBC-CBMW affirming churches for nearly 40 years. My present understanding has not come quickly or easily because I hold to a high view of Scripture. Non-hierarchical complementarianism (or, NHC; which I think is a better label for what I--and many biblical egalitarians--believe) is fraught with misunderstanding and misrepresentation. It is rare for anyone, but most especially a woman, who holds to this position not to be dismissed, or worse. For example, in the CBMW podcast you referenced, Mohler definitively and forcefully equates acceptance of women in pulpits with a slippery slope progression into LGBTQ liberalism. Many times NHC women are dismissed as power-hungry radically feminist misandrists who have no grasp of the plain reading of Scripture. It can get quite ugly.
So, I appreciate how it feels to a woman who holds to a thoughtful conviction of HC to bear with the arguments coming from biblical egalitarian scholars and theologians. For me, those arguments were not only convincing, but helpful and life-giving (in many senses). Still, this matter is deeply disruptive if you hold to any position with conviction. You have given me something to think about: How can we engage in serious conversation without being dismissive or inconsiderate? Or, can we? I think the SBC (among other entities)is pushing for the answer to be, decisively: "No!"
Thank you for this series! It has put into words a lot of things I've been thinking about.
I came to this article through Tim Challies site, and very thankful I did. You put into words exactly what I think. I did a four part series on this issue (before SBC decision) and later, one in which I defended having a female chaplain at a Christian children's camp. Yes, I am a complementarian. I despise these labels and suggested there's middle ground here: complemengarian.
Looking in from the outside, are women in complementarianism made invisible because egalitarians and others don't see them, or count their ministries as outliers or because they're listening to the complementarian narrative that women are invisible, soft h helpers to their men? Can we blame egalitarians for listening to and believing what complementarian men say about women? The strictest rule is always applied across denominations. What the SBC does in the States will spread to the world--I'm never done telling this to the pastors here in Northern Ireland who think that the American Church has lost its mind, but it isn't removed even a little bit from what they are practising.
There is a principle in technology development that when a new technology takes over the market, the skills needed to use that technology well are found in the previous technology. For instance, Radio copy editors were the first screenwriters and were brilliant because they were used to writing strong dialogue without visual aids; the same applied to silent films: actors who had the experience of not having a voice had stronger facial acting ability and directional messaging. In this way, a strong, independent woman is not made less strong or independent by choosing complementarianism, but subsequent generations of women are increasingly made subordinate to male oversight and rule. A man possessed of great virtue who chooses to believe in complementarianism doesn't cease to be a man of great virtue, but the virtues that make him a great man are greatly diminished when his sons inherit the world he gives them without developing those self-same virtues he developed while not complementarian.
Complementarianism is like socialism; it only works when paired with a strong democracy--remove meaningful equality, chip away at democracy (which many Com. men are doing), and what we have is 100% Grade A Patriarchy.
Thank you Dani. Very thoughtful. Speaking of traditional women being cancelled I'm reminded of when the Episcopal Church in the U.S. abolished the lay orders of deaconesses and, if one reads the history, many women wanted to stay in that office. There are bad traditional actors no doubt. But the beautiful display of glory we find in gender diversity throughout the biblical narrative and in the apostolic teaching reveals God wishes women to flourish and Jesus wishes His bride to flourish. Preston Sprinkle has it backwards. The whole narrative from Genesis to Revelation reveals a beautiful diversity not a sameness. Esther, as a type of the church submits to her king and her petition is answered, the Queen of Psalm 45 displays glory and her King delights in her. The "wife" of Proverbs 31 brings glory and honor to her family and her husband who is "praised" in the gate. "The bride is adorned for her husband."
Egalitarians do not erase gender distinction, or at least the ones who truly are grounding their views in scripture. By characterizing their arguments as such you're kind of painting them all with the same brush Dani accuses us of using on complimentarians. We deny that a distinction in gender prescribes a distinction (and really an inequality) in role.
Based on Gen 1 and Gen 2. Much in the same way that Dani doesn't find egalitarian readings convincing, we do not find complimentarian readings convincing.
That being said, I think the root issue of the conflict lies in the insistence that only our subjective views are correct. I for myself, would advocate that complimentarian and egalitarian churches should teach both views as options and let each individual decide for themselves. That way, no woman would be making an uninformed choice to abide by complimentarian theology, and no egalitarian would be so ignorant of complimentarian theology as to straw man it as having no valid arguments. (Something that many complimentarians also do to egalitarians, and much in the same way that Dani feels comp women are often erased from view in egal arguments, comps are often quick to assume the egal congregations and marriages are filled with passive, feminized men, as though the two possible options for male behavior are unilateral authority or passivity)