The CBE Scroll

Comment by Pam

July 5, 2007 @ 10:59 am

As I understand it, complementarian men say that women are ‘ontologically equal’ but must be ‘functionally subordinate.’ This is not equality.

Someone (a man) said on another blog something that I thought clarified the issue for me very well – that complementarians don’t understand interdependence and therefore promote a culture of co-dependence. I think that’s exactly right.

Whether you are drunk on alcohol or drunk on power, the co-dependents always suffer. This is about ‘control issues’ and it’s read into the Bible.

Comment by makeesha

July 5, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

Well said! I wish complementarians would just say what they believe and stop trying to sugarcoat it to try to woo people to their position. The reality is that complementarianism is not truly complementary, nor is it equal in any way, shape, or form. I would respect them more if they would at least acknowledge that.

Comment by Karen

July 5, 2007 @ 9:35 pm

JLP, that seems to be it in a nutshell. Thanks for expressing yourself so openly and honestly. And, in what way did Jesus ever display this kind of superiority and dominance in his relating to others?

This was a challenge for me to look at how I relate to those of, and not of, my gender, ethnicity, class, and even religion, etc. We need to somehow find the key to meekness and humility in our lives so that we can truly live as Christ’s followers.

And, happy (belated) July 4th to all of you south of the border!

Comment by Elsie

July 5, 2007 @ 10:56 pm

Well said! Thank you!

Comment by Henriette

July 6, 2007 @ 5:31 am

You make a very valid comment – what do complementarians mean by ‘equal?’ I think that they mean equal in the eyes of God only – we are equal heirs in the kingdom. Unfortunately, the way we serve and use our gifts now will determine eternal rewards in heaven. If I were a man, I would not want to put myself between God and his calling on a certain woman. I think Peter’s injunction of ‘we must obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29, NIV) is a very fitting reminder of our responsibilities as believers – male or female.

Comment by Karen

July 6, 2007 @ 8:58 am

Complementarians distinguish between equality in essence and difference in function. They have even brought in a semi-Arian view of the Trinity in order to uphold their argument – i.e. the Son is equal, but in function he is submissive. Most of us would agree to some extent – the Son emptied himself and became like us and submitted to the Father for the duration of the incarnation, but at the ascension he returned to his position of equality in form and function. Complementarians say the submission is eternal! Therefore, women must be submissive eternally!

These men have an agenda – to safeguard their power. Paul encourages women to prophesy. Wayne Grudem (a prominent complementarian) devalues 1 Corinthians 14:3, where prophecy is for building the church, encouragement, and consolation. Spiritual gifts seem to be distributed without regard to gender. You are right to feel angry. Whatever they say, they do not regard women as equal in function, and therefore a woman is a second class citizen in God’s kingdom and will be so for all eternity!

Comment by Christin

July 6, 2007 @ 2:07 pm

Well said. The word ‘equality’ is used very often and makes everybody feel ‘nice,’ but in the end it’s not equality unless my gender doesn’t disqualify me from anything and unless my gender doesn’t mean there are extra requirements expected of me.

Comment by Terri

July 6, 2007 @ 8:58 pm

It amazes me, the disconnect of the Complementarians. The book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood relegates women to more like animals than humans. After Adam surveys all the (helpful) animals and finds no companion suitable for him, God then creates (helpful) woman. Wayne Grudem (one of the authors) and his companions seem to be on a mission to destroy the personhood and spiritual identity of women everywhere. Just google ‘women preachers’ and you will see what I mean.

The Complementarians’ message causes a disconnect in the spiritual lives of women. Women can be equally saved with men but not equally gifted. Women are allowed to suffer with Christ (which also includes domestic abuse) but are at the same time convinced by complementarians’ notions of male leadership that they cannot claim any power or authority based on the fact that they are female (including defending themselves against domestic abuse). Complementarians act like ‘and he will rule over you’ (Genesis 3:16, NIV) is Gods’ special reward for sinful men everywhere.

Egalitarians have to keep spreading the word of truth. When you are redeemed by the blood of Jesus, it does more than cover sin (as in the Old Testament) – it takes it away, erases it, and God casts it into the sea of forgetfulness, never to be remembered again. Complementarians, on the other hand, seem to be in opposition to this message when it concerns women. Complementarian thought feels the need to remind women that there is a reason for their perpetual subjection, sin, just like when Jewish women had to walk in the front of their funeral processions as a reminder that it was their sin that brought death into the world. The world and the patriarchal church have no problem shaming and blaming women, and women have no problem receiving the guilt.

Women need to receive the good news of total forgiveness of sins and then believe it. Women also need to protest those who attempt to place heavy yokes of bondage around their necks.

Comment by Sandy

July 7, 2007 @ 7:22 am

Thank you! I belong to an affirming community, both in the seminary I graduated from and the one I’m currently working on my PhD at. My church is also very affirming and supportive of women. However, I have friends outside of these communities, including women, who are complementarians, and this post really said what the truth is concerning those ideas.

I would love to think that in a generation or two this will be old history – that young women will wonder how anyone could have ever believed that women were meant to be subjugated. I do not believe that will be so, and so I appreciate all who are a part of this necessary fight.

Comment by Diane

July 7, 2007 @ 10:00 am

JLP, thanks for posting this. This is a topic that a lot of Christians don’t want to take an honest look at. One reason could be that if they ask themselves these questions it leads them to question whether these beliefs line up with Jesus’ redemptive work. But, I believe the Holy Spirit is causing a stir in the hearts of his people, because these questions will not go away. May men and women pray for believers to abide in Christ and for the Holy Spirit’s fullness to proclaim the good news of our Savior.

Comment by Sherri

July 7, 2007 @ 10:58 am

I know that in their literature complementarians repeatedly say they believe women are equal. But, if they truly do consider women equal, they need to define what they mean by it.

After I read this post I thought ‘OK, let’s look at the definition of “equal.”’ When I put the search into Wikipedia, it changed ‘equal’ to ‘equality’ and wanted me to be more specific. As I looked at the options given: ‘equality of outcome,’ ‘equality of opportunity,’ ‘equality of treatment,’ ‘sexual equality,’ and ‘social equality,’ I began to get a little miffed. So much can be written about each of these areas that are not equal according to the complementarian way of thinking.

Comment by will

July 8, 2007 @ 9:25 am

I am pretty open minded on this subject, and I came to this website to learn more, but if the great and sovereign God chooses to direct men more than women, what in the world are you thinking saying ‘that’s not fair’ or that’s not equal?

Comment by leigh

July 8, 2007 @ 6:38 pm

You know, I think what is challenging in this situation is that it is difficult to communicate with patriarchal Christians using broader concepts and ideas.

That has been my experience, at least so far. Isn’t the enforcement of gender roles another form of legalism? How do you reconcile this with the fact that we no longer live under the law? How do you reconcile this with the concept of ‘the priesthood of all believers?’

Great post, by the way.

Basically, I fear that some people actually believe that all women are happy – or will be – when they try living as outlined above. Or, in any event, it doesn’t matter whether you feel like women are treated equally or not.

Complementarians say that it’s the system set up by God, and you are equal, regardless of the way we treat you (which is just the way that God said we should, after all). It’s tough to break through this way of thinking uncritically. It can be such a closed system.

Comment by Cheryl

July 8, 2007 @ 9:33 pm

What they (complementarians) mean by ‘equality’ is that men and women are equal in salvation and in God’s eyes, but that is the extent of equality. However, in man’s eyes, women are not equal (according to complementarians).

In addition, they believe that women teachers are needed by other women and by children, but men certainly don’t need women teachers.

However, God’s word tells a different story. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:21, ‘And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you;” or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”’ (NKJV)

Notice that the ‘eye’ is not allowed to say ‘I’ don’t need you. When complementarians say that women teachers are only needed for other women and children but ‘I don’t need you,’ they are going against what God has told them they are not allowed to say. God gives them no permission to declare that men do not need women teachers.

Women will never be declared spiritually equal with men unless complementarians can say ‘I need you.’ God needs to do a work in these men’s hearts so that they can understand their need. The body of Christ will not be whole until we all understand that each part is vitally needed. ‘I need you’ should be our humble expression to each other.

Comment by sally

July 8, 2007 @ 10:47 pm

I have been watching this post, thinking, ‘Lots of people are going to comment on this,’ but no one has. I think the reason is that you have said it all – and so clearly too. Well done. I, too, would love to read an answer to this.

Comment by David

July 9, 2007 @ 11:25 pm

I’ve yet to understand what it means for a man to be a ‘spiritual leader’ of a woman. What does it really mean, ‘operationally,’ as we say in business? No one has ever told me. Does it mean that the man has to initiate prayer, Bible reading, church meeting attendance, and biblical education for children? Does it mean that the woman (wife) cannot have an idea before the man has it, or that the man is the ‘final filter’ on acting on any idea? What if the woman’s idea is a good one and the man is an idiot? These problems have been canvassed before, but I’ve yet to read an actionable answer that would be workable in the real world.

Comment by Liz

July 10, 2007 @ 4:42 am

Well said and so very clear to those of us who believe in real equality. Why is it that all cannot see it that clearly? There’s nothing ‘unspiritual’ about things making good sense.

Comment by Diane

July 11, 2007 @ 3:50 pm

Hello Will (see comment 59334). I hope I don’t sound unkind in responding to your comment, and I’m glad you’re willing to dialogue on this topic, but does God really choose to direct men more than women? I believe God calls both male and female. For example (this is not directed at faithful men, fathers, and husbands), most of the Christian families I know of are led by unappreciated Christian women who pray and teach by example and word the will of God to their children. These families would have been ungodly without the faithfulness of God’s servants and their prayers. God is guiding and directing these women.

The prayer ministry in most churches would have been almost or non-existent if it weren’t for women responding to God’s will. Prayerlessness is a huge factor in the worldliness and sin we see in today’s churches. God is guiding and directing these women.

I can go on about the increase in the crime rate that would happen without faithful men and women responding to God’s commission.

I once again apologize to my faithful brothers who are godly examples to your families, neighbors, community, and churches, but so many times those responsibilities are left upon women alone, when God’s directives are given to both.

I believe God calls both men and women and faithfully equips those who respond.

Comment by JLP

July 11, 2007 @ 8:51 pm

Will (see comment 59334), you said,

I am pretty open minded on this subject and I came to this website to learn more, but if the great and sovereign God chooses to direct men more than women what in the world are you thinking saying ‘that’s not fair’ or that’s not equal?

What if God doesn’t choose to direct men more than women, and yet people are being told that he does? What then?

In the Bible, do you find God directing men more than women?

Comment by Liz

July 12, 2007 @ 10:48 pm

In response to David (see comment 59564), there are sadly a current heap of books which do just that. They give practical ways in which a man is to lead and scenarios about how the woman is to submit. They vary from the ‘sublime’ to the ‘ridiculous’ but are seldom questioned because questioning seems like not trusting God.

Comment by Liz

July 12, 2007 @ 10:53 pm

Hi Will (see comment 59334). The problem with God seeming to direct men more than women is that it goes against the overall theme of Scripture, beginning in Genesis when God said that male and female were made in God’s image and were both given the task of looking after the garden. Sin destroyed the original intention until Christ redeemed us (bought us back). If we live in Christ, we will know full equality and mutual responsibility just as in the beginning. Also, all the instructions given to believers in the New Testament are without bias toward one gender or another. We are all encouraged to fulfill the ‘one anothers’ and work together in humility and love.

Even in the Old Testament, God often spoke to women before, or in spite of, their husbands and directed them as individuals.

Comment by Sandy

July 14, 2007 @ 2:33 pm

Dave (see comment 59564), in my experience ‘spiritual headship’ has been used as a way for certain men and women to maintain the infallibility of Scripture without accepting the extremes of complementarianism.

Basically, again in my experience, this means that the man is to lead in matters spiritual. So, he should lead his family in daily prayer/devotions. He should have the final say over what church the family attends, etc.

Of course, the problem with this is that the ‘spiritual’ is separated out from the rest of life.

Comment by Ralph

July 15, 2007 @ 11:11 am

I found it interesting that everyone who responded to Will (see comment 59334) didn’t get his question, nor the point that he made with his question. God’s intention when creating us male and female wasn’t that we are equal, but that we operate in the capacity in which he designed us. This doesn’t mean that women should be oppressed or excluded in service to him, but it certainly doesn’t mean that women should be what men are, which is what I see many stating here.

So if half of the churches have women pastors and the other half men, will that solve your problems? Absolutely not. Equality is not the problem, but rather, obedience to God is the problem we have with sin, and sin is the root of all our problems.

I think that those of you who search for equality will find it futile, and not based in Scripture.

Just one person’s observation.

Comment by suzanne

July 15, 2007 @ 9:17 pm

I’m late to this discussion but had to add some comments from one of the worst talks on complementarianism that I have heard. At the end of the talk, after setting up the man as leader and authority in the home and the church and the women as subordinate, he added two points. One, that the real problem was our social preconceptions – that it is somehow better to be in authority than to be subordinate – and that this was an unbiblical value judgment. Two (this one seemed almost like a threat), that since the Son of God had been subordinate for six billion years and would never complain to the Father so no women should dare question her ‘role.’

The talk was incredibly manipulative but my main point is that they (complementarians) use language in ways that destroy language and the ability to communicate. Almost Orwellian, ‘equality’ is however they define it, to be in authority is no more desirable than to be subordinate, up is down and down is up.

Comment by Lori

July 16, 2007 @ 4:19 am

See comment 60287.

I found it interesting that everyone who responded to Will (see comment 59334) didn’t get his question, nor the point that he made with his question. God’s intention when creating us male and female wasn’t that we are equal, but that we operate in the capacity in which he designed us.

That is exactly the same argument that the Victorians used to justify their horrendous treatment of the poor. In fact, there’s a popular hymn here in Britain, All Things Bright and Beautiful, which actually had a verse a hundred years ago stating that God created rich and poor people and assigned them to their station in life. Mercifully, that verse has now been removed.

The analogy doesn’t stop there, however. The Victorians took a secular idea called Social Darwinism and basically put a Christian gloss on it. You may know Social Darwinism better from the popular saying, ‘survival of the fittest.’ For people, it means that if you’re middle class and above, then obviously you are smarter and better than those who are poor. The Christian twist came when they said that since God had assigned each person to their social station in life, then obviously He looked more favorably on those who weren’t poor, and poor people who tried to rise above their station were sinning against God. Rich people, in turn, were expected to practice noblesse oblige, and take care of the lesser souls under them.

During that same time, ‘science’ taught that black people were less intelligent and more primitive than white people. Christian missionaries then saw it as their duties to not only bring the Word of God but the ‘blessings’ of Western-style living to the ‘savages.’ Of course, no matter how Western these African people acted, they would never be truly equal to the white missionaries since, after all, God had created them black.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. For most of its history, Christianity has taken the world’s view of different groups of people and simply put a God-spin on it. I find it shameful that in the twenty-first century it is still acceptable to hold this viewpoint about women. The rest of the world has moved on to accepting women as equal, so it’s disgusting, quite frankly, that some segments of Christianity would continue to think of women as inferior. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me, though. In his book Soul Survivor, Philip Yancy documents how the greatest opposition to Martin Luther King, Jr. came from white ministers. In fact, King said near the end of his life that the thing that had hurt him the most was that white Christianity had so staunchly defended segregation as ‘biblical.’ So how many generations will it take before the Church is ashamed of its treatment of women, too?

Comment by JLP

July 16, 2007 @ 5:42 am

Christ first revealed himself as the Savior of the world to the woman at the well in John 4. After he was raised from the dead, he revealed himself first to a woman and gave her directions to give to the disciples in Matthew 4. Those are the two most powerful examples of God’s guidance in the Gospels, or perhaps even in the whole of the Bible.

Comment by Jadon

July 16, 2007 @ 6:13 am

See comment 60287.

Ralph, could inequality be a symptom of sin and an obstacle to obedience? People have varying capacities, but one should not determine this by artificial means. Isn’t using gender as a measurement here much like using race? If someone argued that blacks shouldn’t be what whites are, wouldn’t that strike you as offensive? Mixed company need not be confusing while unmixed company could be.

To use your example, if all churches had male pastors, some could assume either that males were naturally qualified to lead (and churches masculine) or that males were naturally fearful of competition (and churches alienating). How could others evaluate what is true obedience and what is genuine sinfulness if churches used Scripture to solidify a possibly skewed result or false impression? There is a difference between something being fixed naturally and something being designed unnaturally.

Of course, what is paramount is being assigned by God to proclaim and embrace the gospel. Being separate from each other can separate us from God if we’re not careful.

Just one person’s observation.

Comment by HistoryLoverAlways

July 16, 2007 @ 6:31 am

Loren (see comment ?), Go to a marriage counselor. Go alone. Tell the counselor the problems your church’s opinion of women has caused you in your marriage. Also, talk about the feelings you have about your church’s opinion of women.

And, do not be afraid to share your new found views on women with your friends and family. You may find some of them feel the same way you do but are afraid to express it. Some of them may react negatively, but you can handle that.

The more egalitarians talk about their views, the more the Christian community will get used to the fact that not everyone believes in gender-based hierarchy.

Comment by Lori

July 16, 2007 @ 6:36 am

See comment 58967.

Someone (a man) said on another blog something that I thought clarified the issue for me very well – that complementarians don’t understand interdependence and therefore promote a culture of co-dependence. I think that’s exactly right.

I like that quote, too, because it’s very insightful. As I discussed under ‘Dating Tips’ (see post Dating Tips), for patriarchal women, it’s very simple. Do as you’re told, stay in your role, and your man will protect and provide for you. If your man doesn’t act like he’s supposed to, then you can’t admit it. You can’t admit to society (or in this case, your church) that your family isn’t ‘normal.’ That’s exactly the kind of atmosphere that fosters co-dependency.

See comment 58970.

Well said! I wish complementarians would just say what they believe and stop trying to sugarcoat it to try to woo people to their position. The reality is that complementarianism is not truly complementary, nor is it equal in any way, shape, or form. I would respect them more if they would at least acknowledge that.

That’s basically what I said under another entry.

See comment 59044.

You make a very valid comment – what do complementarians mean by ‘equal?’ I think that they mean equal in the eyes of God only – we are equal heirs in the kingdom.

Of course, that’s exactly the attitude whites held toward blacks for the past couple of hundred years, and which they used to justify slavery and segregation. Yes, the white master and the black slave were equal – when they died and got to heaven. On earth, however, God created black people to fill a different role than white people. Philip Yancy actually quotes his old segregationist pastor using that language: blacks were created to fill a different role (serving whites) because of the physical characteristics that he gave them. The Bible says it right there in the book of Genesis (in this case, the story of Noah). Yet another example of Christians putting a God-spin on a worldly viewpoint and pretending it’s spiritual.

Terri (see comment 59112) said,

Women are allowed to suffer with Christ (which also includes domestic abuse) but are at the same time convinced by complementarians’ notions of male leadership that they cannot claim any power or authority based on the fact that they are female (including defending themselves against domestic abuse).

That’s an excellent point! Women are told to submit just like Christ did. Well, what about all that other stuff that Christ did? Like, say, casting out demons, healing the sick, preaching, etc? (Insert cheeky grin here.)

See comment 59396.

You know, I think what is challenging in this situation is that it is difficult to communicate with patriarchal Christians using broader concepts and ideas.

Complementarians say that it’s the system set up by God, and you are equal, regardless of the way we treat you (which is just the way that God said we should, after all). It’s tough to break through this way of thinking uncritically. It can be such a closed system.

That’s been my experience, too, at least on the internet. There is absolutely no discussion on this issue. The Bible says that I’m right (in supporting patriarchy) and that you’re wrong. You’re just a feminist/liberal trying to undermine God’s Word. I’m sorry if this is offensive, but really in my experience those who hold to gender hierarchy are some of the most close-minded people I have ever met. It does make you wonder what they’re afraid of. I mean, if patriarchy is the divine will of God, as revealed in his Word, then won’t His will stand up to any scrutiny? I don’t find the idea of a God who tells you to ‘do this’ without allowing you to ask questions to be very attractive.

See comment 59418.

Women will never be declared spiritually equal with men unless complementarians can say ‘I need you.’ God needs to do a work in these men’s hearts so that they can understand their need.

The core of Christian patriarchal teaching is spiritual autonomy for men: I pray for the family. I lead them in religious instruction (devotions). I decide where we go to church. This is, of course, completely contrary to the spirit of the New Testament church. It’s also contrary to what Jesus taught.

See comment 59564.

I’ve yet to understand what it means for a man to be a ‘spiritual leader’ of a woman. What does it really mean, ‘operationally,’ as we say in business? No one has ever told me.

See my comments under ‘Dating Tips’ (see post Dating Tips)

And, finally (see comment 59428),

I have been watching this post, thinking, ‘Lots of people are going to comment on this,’ but no one has. I think the reason is that you have said it all – and so clearly too. Well done. I, too, would love to read an answer to this.

Several months ago we had this same discussion. I actually posted the dictionary definition of ‘equal’ and challenged patriarchs to say how this lined up with their beliefs regarding women.

The silence was so deafening you could hear crickets chirping.

Comment by LMcC

July 16, 2007 @ 10:09 am

See comment 60287.

I found it interesting that everyone who responded to Will (see comment 59334) didn’t get his question, nor the point that he made with his question. God’s intention when creating us male and female wasn’t that we are equal, but that we operate in the capacity in which he designed us. This doesn’t mean that women should be oppressed or excluded in service to him, but it certainly doesn’t mean that women should be what men are, which is what I see many stating here.

I’m going to try to say this in the nicest way I know how…

Stop. Stop right there.

Egalitarian women do not want to be ‘what men are.’ We do not want to be men, we do not want to be like men, and we do not want to blur sex lines. We are not what the sexual hierarchs make us out to be.

The fact is that we do want to operate ‘in the capacity in which he designed us.’ He has designed us with gifts, talents, and abilities that we do not want to waste and that we do want to use for his glory. We recognize that God is not limited by our chromosomes. We recognize that we are responsible for what we do with what God has given us, and we cannot blame our husbands or fathers if we waste or neglect God’s gifts. We see no evidence that using our gifts will harm our own womanhood or weaken men. All we want is the freedom to serve God as he has gifted us and not as humans would like to limit us (and it is humans who limit, not God), period.

If you’re going to say something about us, do not say that we want to be men or be like men, for that is completely untrue. Instead, say that we want to be the people God wants us to be and have the freedom to use everything God has given us; that is the truth.

Comment by makeesha

July 16, 2007 @ 1:07 pm

Well said.

Not only that, we also don’t hate men and we don’t think women should have more rights or freedoms than men. We don’t think women should rule men and we don’t think that women should nag or domineer.

The point of equality that egalitarians value most is mutual submission and each person’s loving and serving of others to the highest degree.

Comment by JLP

July 16, 2007 @ 7:01 pm

Ralph (see comment 60287) said,

God’s intention when creating us male and female wasn’t that we are equal, but that we operate in the capacity in which he designed us.

At least Ralph admits that he doesn’t think men and women are equal. That’s a huge step up from complementarian men who say women are equal, but then assign them second-class citizenship in the home and at church.

Comment by JLP

July 16, 2007 @ 7:37 pm

To Suzanne (see comment 60401), have you ever thought of sharing these verses with the man who gave the talk on complementarianism?

‘When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”‘ (Matthew 20:24-28, NIV)

‘When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”‘ (Luke 14:7-11, NIV)

Comment by JLP

July 16, 2007 @ 8:03 pm

Suzanne (see comment 60401), just another thought – you might want to share with the speaker that you do not believe that Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father.

Comment by JLP

July 16, 2007 @ 8:05 pm

I’ve found everyone’s posts very interesting. I even enjoyed the complementarians who posted. I hope more people continue posting on this topic.

Comment by Mary

July 16, 2007 @ 9:16 pm

Strange, Ralph (see comment 60287). While you upbraid people for not ‘getting’ Will’s question (see comment 59334), you claim to ‘see many here’ stating what no one has stated: that ‘women should be what men are.’

The operative word in Will’s rhetorical question is ‘if.’ Since his premise is false, it’s little wonder that no one is all that keen on ‘getting’ what he’s saying. It’s neither a new nor a compelling invention. I suspect we’ve all heard it before.

No matter how often or loudly patriarchalists make the false claim that God ‘directs men more than women,’ it remains false. God chooses to direct those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Perhaps if some women (and some men) are not being directed by God, it is because their scheme of men as automatic spiritual ‘leaders’ crowds out the Spirit, who does not force entry into those unwilling to submit to the Spirit of God.

Any human being, male or female, is a poor substitute for the Spirit of the living God as guide.

Comment by JLP

July 17, 2007 @ 8:10 am

What some complementarian men don’t realize is that the way they interpret the Bible on women puts women in the place of overgrown children. When women are put in the place of being followers and non-decision makers in the home and the church, and when they are not allowed to teach men spiritual issues, they are not being treated as adults. I hope someday complementarian men come to understand this. Perhaps they will.

Comment by suzanne

July 17, 2007 @ 8:47 pm

JLP (see comment 60765), thanks for the verses. I did try them. The response was that it was my sin to refuse to take the lower place of the woman as follower and that his was the burden of obedience to the revealed will of God as male leader. He was willing to be patient with me, though, and allow that this would be a process for many of us because our culture is so contrary to true biblical patriarchy.

I also expressed my doubts about the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father within the Trinity and my sense that this was not the historic doctrine of the church. I didn’t get far on this one either.

Thanks for your post.

Comment by JLP

July 18, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

Suzanne (see comment 61504), I’m proud of you for expressing your disagreement with him on this issue, even though his response was to imply that you are sinning.

His attitude underscores the importance of an organization like CBE. We have a lot of work to do!

Comment by Leigh

July 18, 2007 @ 4:04 pm

Lori (see comment 60519), I’m not offended regarding your observation about ‘those who hold to gender hierarchy’ being close-minded. And, the things people say on the Internet? They will also say this in email and to your face, given the opportunity. There’s quite a disconnect there, from seeking to be Christ-like as all believers are to do.

I am sorry for, yet unsurprised by, Suzanne’s (see comment 60401) experience. I admire you for having the courage and strength to challenge the speaker’s view of God, because that’s really what this is.

I was glad to see the posts refuting the idea that wanting to use our gifts equaled wanting to be (like) men.

I’m still confounded by the way complementarians can and do ignore not only the God of love with their ways, but also the God of justice. And, they explain it away as though it’s one of the mysteries of the faith. ‘Well, we don’t understand why God wants it this way, why he made women and men equal and gifted them equally and then won’t allow men to benefit directly from the gifts of some of the women. But, gosh darn it, he just did.’

You can’t point out that such a system is not just or loving. They don’t see that. It’s weird.

Comment by JLP

July 18, 2007 @ 7:43 pm

Suzanne (see comment 61504), I once had a complementarian pastor make somewhat similar remarks to me. About five years later he was a full-fledged egalitarian and remains one to this day.

Comment by Trevor

July 19, 2007 @ 1:01 am

The fact that you, Will (see comment 59334), and you, Ralph (see comment 60287), spend time looking at the posts on this site and actually commenting is gratifying.
Your comments, though, are unlikely to change our ways of believing and operating. I guess that you know that. However, they do confirm in no uncertain terms what it is that is so undesirable about the traditional viewpoint.

That said, there is one thing that I would like you and other complementarians to consider. Jesus’ words in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) include this statement, ‘Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.’ (NLT) Most, if not all, of these commands of Jesus would be found in the four Gospels, principally the Sermon on the Mount. Nowhere is there any mention of the need to observe a God-given divine ordering between men and women, or that men are to be the principal purveyors of God’s will. In fact, if we were to adhere to Jesus’ actions and attitudes in respect to women as revealed in the Gospel accounts, we would be bound to abandon patriarchy and hierarchy completely, in favor of a more just and gracious way.

Really, this is all that the men and women represented on this forum are on here about, and it would be a stretch to label that as unbiblical, ungodly, or sinful. To do so is just an emotive cop-out.

Comment by Liz

July 19, 2007 @ 8:33 am

In reply to the comment by Ralph (see comment 60287), and I quote, ‘it certainly doesn’t mean that women should be what men are.’ Two questions: What exactly is it that you perceive ‘men are’ that women should desire to be like. And, doesn’t it strike you as odd that there are not forums of this nature where men are writing to say how ‘unfair’ it is that they are treated differently from women. If the traditional role for women is so desirable, one would expect that at least some men would be questioning why God made it so.

Comment by Mary

July 19, 2007 @ 7:46 pm

Liz (see comment 61723), your comment reminds me of an interesting response I read just the other day – I don’t remember where – in which a husband came back from church quite put out with a group of elders who had been harping about how women were supposed to be subject to men. He wondered just how good a thing these men really though ‘being subject’ was supposed to be, since none of them were at all interested in ‘being subject’ themselves.

Or, as a dear (male) friend once observed, ‘If submission is such a good thing for women, why don’t more men give it a try?’ (For the record, he and his wife practice mutual submission and have one of the strongest, happiest marriages I’ve ever seen.)

Comment by Lori

July 20, 2007 @ 11:41 am

See comment 61662.

I’m still confounded by the way complementarians can and do ignore not only the God of love with their ways, but also the God of justice. And, they explain it away as though it’s one of the mysteries of the faith. ‘Well, we don’t understand why God wants it this way, why he made women and men equal and gifted them equally and then won’t allow men to benefit directly from the gifts of some of the women. But, gosh darn it, he just did.’

You can’t point out that such a system is not just or loving. They don’t see that. It’s weird.

Yes, it is weird. When you step back from individual Bible verses and look at the big picture, what you have is the following: sometime way back when, God decided to create the earth and put people in it so that he could have a relationship with them. Then, he decided to divide humans into two genders so that they could have relationships with each other. So far, so good. It sounds like a loving God.

However, then God decides that one gender will be permanently subordinate to the other. Why? Why did God choose to make women subordinate? For many patriarchs, they simply look at the end result and draw a conclusion. Because God made women physically weaker, then that must mean he wants them to be subordinate. Push that logic back far enough, though, and you get to questions you can’t answer. Why women? Why would a loving God do that? And, for that, my friends, ‘because we say so’ is not a satisfactory answer. What was it JLP (see comment 61109) said about treating women like children?

Comment by Robin

July 25, 2007 @ 5:04 pm

Several thoughts about all of the above:

1. Genesis 3:16 is most accurately translated when the English word ‘yet’ (so the NASB-U and NRSV) or ‘nonetheless’ (NLT) is found between the first and second halves of the verse: ‘To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”’ (Genesis 3:16, NASB, emphasis added)

Many scholars believe that the ‘he’ in ‘he will rule over you’ should actually be ‘it.’ ‘I will greatly multiply your pain… yet your desire will be for your husband, and it will rule over you.’ God would then be saying, ‘It is going to be really painful to you when you have children, but your sexual desire for your husband will be so strong that it will always overrule your thoughts/intentions of protecting yourself from the pain of childbirth by not having sex with your husband.’

‘[I]t’ also makes sense, because the word inevitably binds Eve’s crime with her punishment: because she had misused her desire when she ‘saw that the fruit of the tree was good… and pleasing… and desirable… and ate it’ (3:6, NIV, emphasis added), God causes her future experiences of the one desire on which her and the man’s ability to ‘be fruitful and increase in number’ (1:28, NIV) rests to bring her great physical pain every year or so.

Using ‘it’ instead of ‘he’ is also supported by the fact that God’s words in 3:16 were written down in the form of Hebrew poetry. Now, the form of this ‘poem’ is in parallels: ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe’ says essentially the same thing as ‘with pain you will give birth to children.’ In itself, that’s a parallel couplet. What makes this first sentence part of a Hebrew ‘poem’ is that the third and fourth lines are constructed the same way that the first and second are: in parallel. ‘[Y]et your desire will be for your husband…’ The ‘yet’ ties the desire to the pain and shows that desire is now inevitably associated with pain: ‘and it [your desire] will rule over you,’ no matter how unfortunate that is, pain-wise.

As they say on TV, ‘But wait! There’s more!’ Other support for ‘it’ over ‘he’ are the parallels in the writer’s placement of the nouns that are involved with the pain in each of the four lines: ‘I will make your pains in childbearing… with pain you will give birth…’ and ‘yet your desire will be for your husband, and it will rule over you.’ Pain is emphasized in the second line by placing it at the beginning of the phrase, and it is also given an ‘independent’ identity that will be present as Eve gives birth. The word orders of the third and fourth lines are constructed in the same way: ‘yet your desire will be… and it will rule…’ Why point all this out? If ‘it’ were, in fact, ‘he,’ it would ruin the poetry, because ‘he’ would introduce a new subject (that is, a new person or thing that does something) into the couplet, something the first couplet does not do. (An equivalent construction in the pain phrases would be something like ‘I will make your pains in childbearing… children will give you pain when your bear them.’)

More support: the choice and poetic constructions of the man’s punishment (3:17) follow those of Eve. God ties the man’s eating (‘Because you… ate from the tree…’ (3:17, NIV, emphasis added)) to inevitable future pain. ‘[T]hrough painful toil you will eat of [the ground]… It will produce thorns and thistles for you [ouch!], and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow [equals painful toil, equals clearing thorns and thistles] you will eat your food until you [die].’ (3:17-19, NIV, emphasis added)

So, in parallel with Eve, because Adam ate what God told him not to, eating will always be associated with pain. The ways it will be painful are written in parallel forms couplet by couplet and phrase by phrase, and the whole punishment is put into a poem.

So then, given all of the above, are we supposed to believe (along with the complementarians) that this God-inspired Hebrew poet, who so painstakingly, masterfully, and beautifully constructed every other line of every other couplet of the two poems in 3:16-19, decided to wreck his work by writing a non-parallel phrase at the fourth line of Eve’s punishment poem so that he could make sure that Eve – who God had made in his image, blessed, and commissioned to rule over everything on earth along with her husband, and who he had envisioned and created as a ‘suitable helper,’ (2:20) (the very same ‘name’ he himself sometimes claimed when he rescued his people from their predicaments) – as well as all of the women after her, would allow her husband to rule over her? I think not, and I hope you don’t either!

2. About the supposed subordination of the Son within the Trinity: I think you could refute the validity of using Philippians 2:5-7 to support that idea, because there Paul is talking about the fully human and fully divine Jesus, the man. The fully divine Son (as person of the Trinity), equal with the Father, agreed to let go of his identity with the Father and the Spirit and, with it, the power(s) he had by virtue of that identity, in order to be born fully human and fully divine. That powerlessness meant that, as a man, he was just like a slave – a human person with no power or authority of his own. Paul says that as the man, Jesus humbled himself, and when ‘in human form’ he didn’t want to go to the cross, he ‘obeyed’ God and went to the cross. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (admittedly, quite possibly written later than Paul’s letter) put it differently, though: they report that at Gethsemane, Jesus expressed his human desire that he not have to fulfill all the prophecies and carry out the atonement on the cross. Matthew and Luke report that he even qualified that desire with ‘if it is possible’ (Matthew 26:39, NIV), indicating that his commitment to achieving the end result of the assignment through his death on the cross was always paramount. Most important, though, in all three Gospels, Jesus nullifies his own request: ‘Yet not as I will, but as you will.’ (Matthew 26:39, NIV) So, just as the Son willingly collaborates with the Father and Spirit and they with him in the Godhead, the Son incarnate, Jesus, willingly collaborates with the Father by placing his desire/will aside and laying his life down of his own accord.

Isn’t it amazing that those self-described ‘devout’ complementarians are willing to rewrite the historic confessions and dogma regarding the Trinity rather than believe what the Bible so clearly indicates: that God does not restrict any kind of leadership to men?

Comment by Richard

October 29, 2007 @ 1:42 am

I assume that you agree the curse God placed on Adam and Eve stays in place until Jesus comes again. The blood of Jesus may remove sin, but it hasn’t yet removed the pain of childbirth. Neither has it removed the other parts of the curse. ‘…your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you.’ Maybe the ‘he’ was meant to be ‘it.’ But does anyone doubt that men have ruled over women forever, generally speaking (I admit to the ocassional exception)? Isn’t that truth sort of the basis for this thread?

Comment by tiro

October 29, 2007 @ 10:49 am

Adam and Eve were not cursed. God cursed the serpent to crawl on his belly, and then cursed the ground he will crawl upon. All of this because of Adam’s deliberate rebellious disobedience.

The rest was the result of sin entering into the world.

God was not commanding the man to harshly rule his wife, but was addressing the woman, telling her what would now become a part of their relationship since they disobeyed him.

The fact that males have used coercive authority in the world (which is condemned by Christ in Matthew 20) is a truth that is the result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. This fact is not a good thing. It is the natural result of letting sin rule.

Comment by Lilith

December 4, 2007 @ 10:33 am

There’s a way women can avoid all this and just become atheists or deists. Then you don’t have to bother with subjugation – it doesn’t apply to you. Don’t follow any religion written by men (or women for that matter). My own life became richer and happier when I became an atheist.

Comment by LMcC

December 4, 2007 @ 11:30 am

Lilith (see comment 75186):

No, we can’t really avoid it through atheism or deism. I’ve put up with my share of sexist behavior from non-theists as well as from theists of all types. Sexism and other types of discrimination are pretty much universal.

About the only thing I’ve found to be consistently useful in dealing with sexism is knowing something about self-defense, using it successfully only once in front of a few witnesses, and letting the grapevine take care of the rest. Yes, the pacifists will be angry with me for that one; but one good and appropriate show of strength can actually prevent more problems later.

Comment by tiro

December 4, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

See comment 75186.

Lillith, sexism isn’t from God or about God. It’s what sinful humans do to each other. And yes, Christians sin too. So not honoring God will not affect the sexism one iota. But, honoring God and trusting him first and foremost allows God to help us deal with it and sometimes prevent it in our own lives and sometimes others.

Comment by Historyloveralways

December 4, 2007 @ 12:34 pm

You can reject complementarianism but accept Christ. You don’t have to be a follower of gender hierarchy in order to follow Jesus.

Please don’t let those who believe in female submission to male authority turn you off to Christ. Believe me, the way Christ will treat you will be totally different than the way those who believe in gender hierarchy will treat you.

Comment by Watcher

December 4, 2007 @ 1:45 pm

Lilith, welcome, and I mean that.

We don’t get many atheists or deists, or at least not many that I have seen. I hope this was not just a one-time visit and that you plan to stop by again.

Many of us who have accepted Christianity and have rejected the hardline submission teaching are not so much interested in accepting religion written by men or women but are truth seekers who find themselves at this place on their journey. But, we do not assume that those who are not at this point are not truth seekers. And we hope that you and others will converse with us about your own journeys and why you have taken the roads that you have. I find this is a place where differences can be discussed in a safe and civil fashion, if you so choose.

Again, welcome.