Before complementarian women are told that any resulting collateral damage to them is simply the price of protecting complementarianism, they are entitled to ask a simple question: why should they be the ones expected to absorb the consequences of a proposal whose advocates themselves cannot seem to agree on where its boundaries lie or how—or indeed whether—those boundaries will be consistently applied?
Dani, your title “Tiptoeing through the Complementarian Minefield” powerfully summarises the problem. But, as I commented on your earlier piece, the uncertainty is baked in.
The uncertainty has multiple causes.
In my view (though I guess not in yours), one of the causes is the lack of explicit Scriptural support for complementarianism. For example, there is no explicit command in Scripture from God to men, saying that men ought to lead women or to exercise authority over them.
Totally agree that the uncertainty is baked in, and specifically, from my own experience at least, for the reasons in my separate comment.
...actually, I'm going to append that a little: I do think it's baked in, but I don't think that also means it's wholly intentional—it IS however *convenient*. So, you will be hard pressed to find a man who says explicitly "yes I desire for women to be confused because I actually just want power over them." but the beliefs that come out that way are bolstered by their public-facing "I think this is what scripture says" side, AND by the secret, subconscious, inward-facing "The outcomes are to my advantage, how nice that I can have an excuse."
I often reflect back on how I understood things when I was complementarian and part of an elder session, and your point about the minefield brought this thought to mind:
What complementarian men in leadership want is to have their relationship to God—as they see it— mirrored in women's relationship to them. Meaning: you deserve nothing, but because the one in authority over you is glorious, you are given mercy.
What does that mean in practice? You're meant to address the minefield through submission to authority, not through clear boundaries that let you make your own decisions. Women should act as though they are fully restricted by default, and let men/leaders give them permission, case-by-case, when and where they may step in the minefield, because those judgements are solely their responsibility as the protectors of the church's purity. Since God has placed them in authority, their benevolence should be trusted just as if you were trusting God himself.
So, men are never obligated to give women any place in the church, and when they do it should be cause for gratitude. Just like with God. And wow isn't that beautiful that they want to be like God to the women around them? Isn't it good that they want to be like God? 🐍
While I get your comparison to serpent wanting to be like God. Paul himself makes the comparison in 1 Corinthians 11 between the Father (God) and the Son (Christ) to the husband and the wife. While one can just assume that it always leads to patriarchy, I think that is why Ephesians 5 speaks of the husband loving the wife as his own body as much as the wife submits to the husband. Now, while that is just the family structure, I don't think its a stretch to combine that with the commands in 1 Timothy and Titus for the overseers to be men (disregarding the confusion over the Deacon(ess) issue) and the command for women to not teach a man (which could be thought of as in the formal 1 Corinthians meeting setting).
Of course, I am a stranger in a strange land on these theological substacks. I meet in the lowest of low church - an off shoot non-demonational group that formed by a former Open Bretheren member during the Jesus People movement of the 70s. So, I don't know what any of this legislative talk is practically, we just meet in our homes and the men preach and all members (men and women) offer prayers and hymns. But outside the worship time, open discussions about scripture are had between men and women.
I was especially drawn to your discussion of scare quotes and asterisks, as recently in a denominational scholars group on Facebook another member used scare quotes around the word journalist. I asked what his purpose was in using the scare quotes, as Daniel Silliman, the writer in question, is a trained journalist by profession (and not just some random blogger).
My interlocutor's response? Acting surprised that quotation marks could trigger someone.
Fantastic article, I've solved this issue by becoming egalitarian. I'm curious if, as a complementarian, the porous boundaries are your solution to the problem (that isn't a problem)? Or if you see a better structure for this in your denomination, even if it can't be cleanly mapped onto the SBC.
I don't know how entitled I am to comment here as a mutualist, but I did appreciate your analysis of the SBC situation. I don't have skin in this exact game, as in, I'm not American, complementarian OR Baptist, but I do agree that whatever happens will have reverberations. I would also observe that I'm not surprised at the nature of the question you pose at the end because ultimately, their 'brand' of complementarian(ism) will always be willing to sacrifice women at the altar of their theology.
Dani, these are excellent, important points. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
I hope this doesn’t come across as snarky or combative. But, to me, the irony of what you shared is that it’s an incredibly strong argument against complementarianism itself. The minefield you described so well has existed and will continue to exist whether or not this SBC amendment passes. And it’s this minefield that makes the whole thing untenable. Having grown up in a very complementarian space and then leaving for an egalitarian community, it’s wild to me how different things are in my new community. There is no minefield. Everyone, men and women, are just freely participating and serving based on their gifts and interests. The non-anxious nature of the community in this regard shines a light on how brutally anxious everyone was in my old community, due to the minefield. And this anxiety seems both unavoidable, and a perfect tool of the powers and principalities to hamstring and distract the church from the mission of Jesus.
I’m not trying to change your mind, just sharing how this landed for me.
I'm really enjoying your perspective on this topic! Thank you for sharing so thoroughly. I'm curious about how you'd think through something. In my mind, this whole conversation/debate is helping make the case for nondenominational churches. (But then I belong to a nondenominational congregation lol). But since we're comfortable with "trade-off" language, I'd love to hear your thoughts around the trade-offs surrounding the nondenom/denominational considerations. Perhaps this is that Hayekian principle at play: the larger the society, the simpler/less complex the governing rules need to be? Would love to hear what you think! :)
Brilliant. Stunningly brilliant. Thanks for teaching us, exhorting us, correcting us, and guiding us with your gifted, humble wisdom. May your tribe increase.
Dani, your title “Tiptoeing through the Complementarian Minefield” powerfully summarises the problem. But, as I commented on your earlier piece, the uncertainty is baked in.
The uncertainty has multiple causes.
In my view (though I guess not in yours), one of the causes is the lack of explicit Scriptural support for complementarianism. For example, there is no explicit command in Scripture from God to men, saying that men ought to lead women or to exercise authority over them.
Totally agree that the uncertainty is baked in, and specifically, from my own experience at least, for the reasons in my separate comment.
...actually, I'm going to append that a little: I do think it's baked in, but I don't think that also means it's wholly intentional—it IS however *convenient*. So, you will be hard pressed to find a man who says explicitly "yes I desire for women to be confused because I actually just want power over them." but the beliefs that come out that way are bolstered by their public-facing "I think this is what scripture says" side, AND by the secret, subconscious, inward-facing "The outcomes are to my advantage, how nice that I can have an excuse."
I often reflect back on how I understood things when I was complementarian and part of an elder session, and your point about the minefield brought this thought to mind:
What complementarian men in leadership want is to have their relationship to God—as they see it— mirrored in women's relationship to them. Meaning: you deserve nothing, but because the one in authority over you is glorious, you are given mercy.
What does that mean in practice? You're meant to address the minefield through submission to authority, not through clear boundaries that let you make your own decisions. Women should act as though they are fully restricted by default, and let men/leaders give them permission, case-by-case, when and where they may step in the minefield, because those judgements are solely their responsibility as the protectors of the church's purity. Since God has placed them in authority, their benevolence should be trusted just as if you were trusting God himself.
So, men are never obligated to give women any place in the church, and when they do it should be cause for gratitude. Just like with God. And wow isn't that beautiful that they want to be like God to the women around them? Isn't it good that they want to be like God? 🐍
Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud.
While I get your comparison to serpent wanting to be like God. Paul himself makes the comparison in 1 Corinthians 11 between the Father (God) and the Son (Christ) to the husband and the wife. While one can just assume that it always leads to patriarchy, I think that is why Ephesians 5 speaks of the husband loving the wife as his own body as much as the wife submits to the husband. Now, while that is just the family structure, I don't think its a stretch to combine that with the commands in 1 Timothy and Titus for the overseers to be men (disregarding the confusion over the Deacon(ess) issue) and the command for women to not teach a man (which could be thought of as in the formal 1 Corinthians meeting setting).
Of course, I am a stranger in a strange land on these theological substacks. I meet in the lowest of low church - an off shoot non-demonational group that formed by a former Open Bretheren member during the Jesus People movement of the 70s. So, I don't know what any of this legislative talk is practically, we just meet in our homes and the men preach and all members (men and women) offer prayers and hymns. But outside the worship time, open discussions about scripture are had between men and women.
Great observations.
I was especially drawn to your discussion of scare quotes and asterisks, as recently in a denominational scholars group on Facebook another member used scare quotes around the word journalist. I asked what his purpose was in using the scare quotes, as Daniel Silliman, the writer in question, is a trained journalist by profession (and not just some random blogger).
My interlocutor's response? Acting surprised that quotation marks could trigger someone.
Fantastic article, I've solved this issue by becoming egalitarian. I'm curious if, as a complementarian, the porous boundaries are your solution to the problem (that isn't a problem)? Or if you see a better structure for this in your denomination, even if it can't be cleanly mapped onto the SBC.
I don't know how entitled I am to comment here as a mutualist, but I did appreciate your analysis of the SBC situation. I don't have skin in this exact game, as in, I'm not American, complementarian OR Baptist, but I do agree that whatever happens will have reverberations. I would also observe that I'm not surprised at the nature of the question you pose at the end because ultimately, their 'brand' of complementarian(ism) will always be willing to sacrifice women at the altar of their theology.
Thank you, Dani.
Dani, these are excellent, important points. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
I hope this doesn’t come across as snarky or combative. But, to me, the irony of what you shared is that it’s an incredibly strong argument against complementarianism itself. The minefield you described so well has existed and will continue to exist whether or not this SBC amendment passes. And it’s this minefield that makes the whole thing untenable. Having grown up in a very complementarian space and then leaving for an egalitarian community, it’s wild to me how different things are in my new community. There is no minefield. Everyone, men and women, are just freely participating and serving based on their gifts and interests. The non-anxious nature of the community in this regard shines a light on how brutally anxious everyone was in my old community, due to the minefield. And this anxiety seems both unavoidable, and a perfect tool of the powers and principalities to hamstring and distract the church from the mission of Jesus.
I’m not trying to change your mind, just sharing how this landed for me.
I'm really enjoying your perspective on this topic! Thank you for sharing so thoroughly. I'm curious about how you'd think through something. In my mind, this whole conversation/debate is helping make the case for nondenominational churches. (But then I belong to a nondenominational congregation lol). But since we're comfortable with "trade-off" language, I'd love to hear your thoughts around the trade-offs surrounding the nondenom/denominational considerations. Perhaps this is that Hayekian principle at play: the larger the society, the simpler/less complex the governing rules need to be? Would love to hear what you think! :)
Brilliant. Stunningly brilliant. Thanks for teaching us, exhorting us, correcting us, and guiding us with your gifted, humble wisdom. May your tribe increase.