Why Complementarianism Gets a Bad Rap
A Purple Cellar reader commented on yesterday's post, describing the confusion many Christians feel about gender distinctions in the church. Someone she knows recently heard that only men can be "real missionaries." But that is to go beyond what the apostle Paul said. The New Testament makes clear that men have the God-given authority within the church to lead it and to teach from its pulpits. In other words, it is God's design that men hold the role of pastor and elder. This certainly does not exempt women from serving as missionaries! There are many aspects to missions besides getting up in a pulpit.
What about Sunday school classes and in-home Bible studies? Are women exempt from teaching in these settings if a class is comprised of men and women? After all, it's not the pulpit. Such questions, to my way of thinking, are attempting to dissect the letter of the law rather than embracing its spirit. The bottom line is that a woman who leads a mixed Bible study is taking on an authoritative Bible teaching role, and, therefore, undermining the structure of the church as God originally set it up. What about the classroom? I believe the same principle applies to women teaching in seminaries: is it really in keeping with God's design for the church for women to be leading in institutions established most specifically to train men for the ministry? It would seem not. On the other hand, I don't believe the spirit of New Testament teaching is violated if a woman teaches a Bible class to high schoolers, because that context is outside of the realm of the church. All in all, the goal ought not to be that of setting up a list of acceptable limits for women in ministry, but rather to cultivate a right understanding of God's design for women that when rightly understood will guide our consciences individually. If our primary goal in all we do ministry-wise is to glorify God uniquely as women, how we go about it will fall into place, and it might look a little bit different for each one of us.
But so many of us are afraid to explore how to serve in a uniquely feminine way--a complementarian way--because the gender issue is often misunderstood. Just because women are not called to preach or to be elders or to lead in marriage does not mean they cannot exercise their gifts, either in the church or in the home. Most of the people I know who are turned off by complementarianism have witnessed a warping of it or have encountered a radical view of the position without knowing all that has shaped such thinking.
Complementarianism doesn't mean a wife should engage in day-to-day activity without running every facet of it by her husband first. I know a few women who won't even read a book unless their husband reads it over first and deems it fit. Certainly counsel from others is wise in most matters, but what I am talking about are women who use complementarianism as an excuse to avoid wrestling with hard issues or to bypass exercising and developing their God-given minds. There are some who believe money is wasted on providing higher education for girls; such convictions, however unwittingly, actually rob women of being all they can be in the church and in the home. A well-developed mind is an asset for every task in life and glorifies God.
We are told that the Proverbs 31 woman "considers a field and buys it." It doesn't say that her husband considered the field first, or at all, for that matter. We are certainly going to strain marital harmony if we purchase real estate without our husband being on board, so that's not the point to be gleaned from Proverbs 31. What we see is a woman who maximizes all of her God-given capabilities, and her husband trusts her to do so, knowing that her efforts benefit her entire family.
Those who really understand complementarianism recognize it is a blessing for women as well as for men. Those who despise it or are afraid of it have been led to believe its blessings are solely for men at the expense of women. But God, who made both male and female in his image, has structured things to bring maximum blessing to both equally.
10 comments:
How does your role in ghost writing books for pastors fit into this model. I look at these books as sermons. How much influence do you have on the final product?
Gretchen,
I think your getting into an ethical issue here that trumps the gender issue in this case. Ghost writing, in my opinion, is unethical unless it is clearly stated on the cover of the book who the real author is, and personally I do not engage in the practice at all.
"There are some who believe money is wasted on providing higher education for girls; such convictions, however unwittingly, actually rob women of being all they can be in the church and in the home."
I fear this is a false characterization. The movie 'The Return of the Daughters' deals with this exact issue and it features an interview with Voddie Baucham. Many of the readers coming from Tim's site know Voddie and respect him. He is a prominent proponent of this position and the characterization above bears no resemblance to the position he and the Botkin's present in the film.
I can think of one other group that has held this sort of position for ages and I don't see a whole lot of Christians getting too upset about it. The Amish. Even looking at the Amish one would have to see that the statement above is a mischaracterization of why the Amish do what they do. We rightly see through these mischaracterizations when they are made against more common views of complementarianism, we shouldn’t be so quick to return the favor to those slightly to the right.
"Those who despise it or are afraid of it have been led to believe its blessings are solely for men at the expense of women."
I guess that you might hand-wavingly one-liner-invalidationly toss aside all thinking on the other half of this issue, if that suits your fancy. And that probably works when speaking to the choir. But, it is rather intellectually dishonest, and will not serve you well when discussing this beyond the confines of those with whom you are close in thought on this issue.
You may have good reasons for your beliefs on this issue. But, it is not like those with more egalitarian leanings are simple stooges who have never thought things through.
On this issue, I see sin at both ends of the spectrum. There are "complementarian" churches that reduce the role of women even to the point of not allowing them to pray in public. (Hardly complementarian, actually). I have personally witnessed such churches.
On the other end of the spectrum are "egalitarian" churches in which they not only hire female pastors, but in which they ONLY hire female pastors. (Similarly, hardly egalitarian in practice).
In both cases, I generally get the feeling that the decisions of the churches in question are made to make an earthly point, not to glorify God.
The fact of the matter is, there is a fairly wide gray zone on this issue. Scripture is not 100% firm on it, and much of what it does say probably had (and has) a cultural element to it. Even your discussion of "pupits," "Sunday school," etc. indicates that you come at this issue from a particular 21st century North American cultural viewpoint that would have been highly odd to those in the early church to which the NT writings were initially addressed.
In other words, on this issue, discarding an understanding of first century culture, current culture, and intervening history is done with some degree of peril.
The fundamental inconsistency I see with restricting 1 Tim 2 to the Church sphere is this: the same reason that (supposedly) causes Paul to bar women from teaching or authority in the church sphere -- the 'second' order of women, and their susceptibility to be deceived -- should also prompt you to bar women from teaching or authority in any semi-important sphere, no?
Certainly a mission field, and arguably secular roles (university, companies) are important.
NB: I don't personally agree with a complementarian reading of 1 Tim 2 or Genesis.
Ethan,
Thanks for contributing your thoughts here. I, too, greatly respect Voddie Baucham, and while I am aware of his view on this issue, I am not familiar with any of his writings on the subject.
Your comment challenges me to get hold of his material and familiarize myself with the case he makes.
From the comments TPC is getting, I see that I should refrain from writing rambling, end-of-the-day posts on such controversial issues! I presented merely one small facet of the overall debate, and not very thoroughly at that.
Before I write more on the issue, I am going to take some time to read up on argument from both sides so as to present a fuller--and more accurate--picture.
Lydia
mmmmm...I am not sure we can say that this command ( I Tim. 2:12)for women not to teach men comes from a cultural element. When the verse was stated, tacked on the end was, "...for Adam was formed first then Eve..." The Apostle was not thinking culturally, but thinking all the way back to creation...to God's original design and intent for the roles of men and women.
He seemed to be starting from the premise of God's design, not so much culturally.
Lydia, might I direct your attention to a blog dedicated solely to this issue. It's at http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/ and bloggers from both sides of the issue (complementarian and egalitarian) participate. It is a place for respectful and thoughtful discussion and excellent reasoning on both sides of the issue.
Lydia,
Might I say that I appreciate and respect your article and willingness to be so forthright and in keeping with scripture.
I think it is sad that many people obviously have seen terrible examples of gender roles in the church played out, particularly perhaps in ultra-conservative churches where male authority is sometimes abused.
Yet, I can not help but wonder if many have just turned their back on the simplicity of what the bible teaches and just can simply not stand any Christian institution that still has the guts to stand strong on this issue while encouraging women to engage in missions and other capacities where they can minister.
At the end of the day, the more women in particular fight against and gain more freedom in areas where they are not supposed to be participating such as ordination as minister, elder, deacon, etc, they are leaving behind and devaluing the most vital ministries they are called to by God. In getting swept up in what the world sees and values, it is so sad that they are then seemingly blinded to the beauty, worth and dignity that God has purposed for women and their particular realms of ministry.
Lydia,
Thanks for such a gracious answer to my question. I had heard something that was not true and assumed it was (as you can tell from the way I wrote my question above). My husband had told me (and I agree with him) that I should have been more loving and less accusing in the way I asked it. Thanks for your ministry!
Post a Comment