The CBE Scroll

Let’s try to concentrate for a moment on the complementarian viewpoint as the more recent theologians have framed it and not on the more fringe (and mostly earlier) elements that are anti-education for women. I think that these more recent formulations of the hierarchical position still have in mind some golden picture of the “holy wife” or “holy female church worker” who submits to her husband and (male) pastor while they defer (never submit) to her (out of love for the weaker vessel, an equal heir in Christ, whether wife or congregrant) and love her as Christ loved the Church. [I know, I'm making a leap here that pastors are supposed to love the Church as Christ loved the Church, but then, although I've never actually seen it, I do think that some of them actually try.]

The question I’ve never been able to understand is, “What do women get out of a faithful following of the complementarian position?” I understand what men get out of it — the power to have the final word and the power to say that God says this and not that. The practical outcome for women is not so rosy, and those results, to me, always seem to have the adjectival qualifyer “diminutive” coloring them. Can she say with authority, “The Holy Spirit is telling me this, even though it contradicts what you (the male) are saying the Holy Spirit is telling you”? If not, then she is not an equal heir in Christ, able to act on the freedom in Christ that Paul is so fond of teaching about. She is someone who needs “special care,” like a child or mentally defective adult. How is it that this picture of women is “golden?” I’m sorry, but I really don’t get it.

In the first century, women lacked the education available to men. This was true for both Jews and Gentiles. No matter where one presently lands in the discussion about women in the ministry; this fact, everyone agrees upon. Craig Keener stated this in Discovering Biblical Equality, “Learning in the Assemblies” [p. 169]. He writes, “More reasonably, women on average were less educated than men, an assertion that no one genuinely conversant with ancient literature would doubt.” Complementarians have used this as a reason to further their arguments forbidding women to preach, teach and exercise authority over men. In the first century, less education equaled less fitness for the ministry. On July 9, 2006, Tamar Lewin wrote an article in the New York Times titled, “At Colleges, Women are leaving Men in the Dust.” Lewin states that women make up 58 per cent of students in both 2 year and 4 year colleges and universities. The most striking statement in the article reads, “Small wonder, then, that at elite institutions like Harvard, small liberal arts colleges like Dickinson, huge public universities like the University of Wisconsin and U.C.L.A. and smaller ones like Florida Atlantic University, women are walking off with a disproportionate share of the honors degrees.” The word “disproportionate” is the important one here. So, in the United States, at least, women are better educated than men. For complementarians, women remain less qualified [or unqualified altogether] for the ministry. Lack of learning is given as a complementarian reason for disqualification from ministry among women in the first century. Oddly for complementarians now, learning has nothing to do with 21st century ministry in the United States. If women are better educated than men, should they be labelled as unqualified for full leadership positions in the church?

The truism of my title relates to previous comments on another post re taking more notice of authority figures than “ordinary” folks. This is another area where the church looks and acts too much like the world where power and prestige rule. That is why Jesus said such radical things as “the last shall be first,” “the person who wants to be great must be the servant of all,” “save your life and you’ll lose it - lose your life for my sake and the gospel and you’ll find it.” Certainly the opposite of how things have been going since Adam and Eve first disobeyed God. One of our Australian Bible college lecturers led a seminar once entitled “Eliminating Elitism” which dealt with the issue of churches being run by power which has traditionally been in the hands of men. We’re not asking for more power for women or even equal power but equal servanthood - each looking to the needs of the other. Authority is not the issue really but pride, status and all the other “worldly” attitudes which persist in our own hearts and affect how we relate to each other.

Authority is always an interesting topic in Christian discussions. Arizona State Professor of Social Psychology, Robert Cialdini wrote about authority and psychological dynamics in the 1980’s. Among other dynamics, Cialdini found that authority relationships influence buying practices among consumers. When authority figures endorse products, they sell.

The current complementarian/egalitarian discussion has centered around this discussion of authority for a long time. It seems that the authority of God and Scripture are usually assumed in both positions. The real questions arise around the authority of the interpreters or the vested cultural authority [usually in men]. When the latter authority [male cultural authority] carries the day, complementarians rule. When Scriptural interpretive authority outweighs the culture, egalitarianism wins. In some ways, this discussion depends on which authority we choose–culture or good Bible interpreters.

Cialdini saw this almost automatic submission to authority years ago. After World War 2, Yale Psychologist, Stanley Milgram concluded the same almost automatic submission to vested authority figures.