According to one of the fundamental tenets of Protestantism, the priesthood of all believers (hereafter, PAB):

(1) All baptized believers are ordained by God as priests.

From here the rest of the argument quickly follows:

(2) Some women are baptized believers.

Therefore,

(3) Some women are ordained by God as priests.

We might thus simply ask our complementarian friends the following: If God has ordained someone as a priest, who are we to deny her ordination?

I suppose one might reply that PAB is purely a spiritual matter that does not pertain to our ecclesiological affairs. However, that reply seems to miss the original meaning of the doctrine, not to mention the context in which Luther himself re-discovered it. Whether or not Luther understood the egalitarian implications of the doctrine is another matter, but to the extent he didn’t, we could say that even he wasn’t being a consistent Protestant! (I am not in a position to say what his view on this matter was, so I am not claiming that he was, indeed, inconsistent.) It appears that, while Luther did make a distinction between priests and ministers, he saw the latter not as a God-ordained position, but simply as those whom we Christians choose from among us to do certain tasks. Since the latter is not based on divine ordination, I would assume that we choose people for these tasks based on our discernment of their natural abilities and spiritual gifts related to those various tasks. So, unless we are willing to state categorically that women are physically or spiritually incapable of performing certain tasks (a strong claim indeed!), then I cannot see how a Protestant would in principle be able to hold to strong complementarianism. I suppose one could deny PAB, but in so doing, one would cease to be properly Protestant.

ONTOLOGY: The study of the fundamental nature of being, what makes something what it is. (Ontology is also a word used in Information Science in another way not related to our issues, in case any of you are in I.S.)

ESSENCE and ACCIDENT: Similar to Ontology, Essence means that some quality or attribute is necessary for something to be what it is. Accident does not mean “accidental” in this case, it means something that a thing is that is not necessary to the essence of what it is.

NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT: These terms mean pretty much what you’d expect. Is this attribute of something necessary to it being what it is?   Is it sufficient to make something what it is?

In my reading, I usually hear ontology used for all of the functions of the words above. There are two areas in the egalitarian/complementarian debate where these come up: The gender of God and how humans are made in the image of God.

Complementarians often argue that God is ontologically male. That is, maleness is an essence of God’s being. Maleness is necessary for God to be God. Christians believe humans are made in the image of God. If God’s essence is male, then only men are complete images of God. Complementarians use this to establish a hierarchy of men over women in the church and in marriage.

Egalitarians refute this, saying that the Genesis account clearly treats the creation of humanity in God’s image, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27 and “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen. 5:2  (KJV) So, while Jesus was born a human male, God is not in His essence, male In fact, it is only the body of Jesus that is male. The God side of the Son’s dual nature is not male at all. God is supra-gender. So, any human hierarchy based on God’s maleness has a fatal flaw in its logic. Both male and female words used to describe God in the Bible are images, not ontological statements.

God’s “maleness” being essential, according to complementarians, for God to be God, means that it becomes  necessary for God to be male. So, the question becomes whether a person’s gender makes them essentially different from humans who are of the other gender. Neither side argues that a person’s gender does not impact them. The question is how necessary that impact is to his/her being in the image of God. Complementarians argue it is necessary for an image of God to be male. This convinces them as to why God has only men in leadership positions: males have leadership built into them by reason of their being God’s exact, necessary image, and women do not. Complementarians apply this both in marriage and in the church. Egalitarians argue that God is God, and God is supragender, so it is neither necessary or sufficient to be male to be in the image of God. So, all of us being in essence human and humans are made in the image of God, we are all necessarily in the image of God and we can act and interact as equals.

Let me toss in one more term, this one a logic term: STRAWMAN. A strawman is an argument written in such a way that the writer can tear it down. I have tried to avoid building strawmen in my discussion above, but I want to encourage you to seek out original sources for both complementarian and egalitarian reasoning in these matters.

Any questions? Any comments?

P.S.: I’d like to make a note of thanks to my nephew, Harvey, who’s a Ph.D. in philosophy, for helping me with this blog.

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:7 TNIV).

Some hierarchical teachers stress that submission is a choice and cannot be forced. When a husband is careful to never force or coerce his wife to submit, the assumption seems to be made that the wife’s submission is completely voluntary. Yet many hierarchical teachings also tell a wife that God wants her to willingly and joyfully submit to her husband’s final decision anytime they are unable to agree on something—unless he is asking her to sin. These teachers go on to explain that sometimes a husband might choose to defer to his wife’s decision and other times he might not. He has the freedom to choose. She does not. These teachers emphasize that God wants wives to give up this freedom of choice for the health of their marriage.

But how healthy is this?

Say that a couple has been discussing an important decision that will affect them both, and it has become clear that they don’t agree. Under these hierarchical teachings, the wife has been led to believe that it is her role, responsibility or obligation to submit to her husband on the matter. And remember, she has been instructed that her submission must be willing and joyful. So if the wife were to say, “Honey, I don’t agree with you, but I’m choosing to submit to what you believe is best for us because I don’t want to disobey God,” would her submission really meet the criteria of being both willing and joyful?

Speaking those words out loud could make it sound like she isn’t completely behind him and backing his decision. Instead, they could convey that since she is acting under a sense of compulsion, her submission is being given reluctantly rather than willingly. She might be thinking, I’m really only doing this because I have to so that I don’t sin against God. Whether she wants to defer to him or not, she really doesn’t have a choice—not if she has been led to believe that to “choose” otherwise would be a sin. Without the freedom to admit that she still does not agree, she has to veil what she is really thinking in order for consensus and harmony to be reached. And, even if she doesn’t like the final decision, these teachers expect her to act like she is joyful about it.

So how does this help their marriage when communication lines have been impaired and healthy conflict resolution has been averted? How can her submission remain completely voluntary when choosing not to submit becomes equated with sin and with missing out on God’s best plan for their marriage?

Acting under compulsion is not the same thing as submitting willingly. When “no” is not a permissible option—without sinning—then a “yes” cannot be authentically and freely given. Thus, this lack of freedom can lead to wives giving resentfully. Could this be one of the reasons why God loves a cheerful giver? I believe that the hierarchical model sets up wives for failure. Basically, they are told that they must give willingly and joyfully or they are sinning.

If a wife is denied the free choice to submit to her husband, then her compliance isn’t submission—it’s obedience. The Bible exhorts wives to submit to their husbands—not to obey them. Submission isn’t just for wives; it’s also for husbands (Eph. 5:21). One could just as easily argue from Scripture that it is the husband who should defer to his wife when they are at an impasse. After all, husbands are instructed to lay down their lives for their wives (Eph. 5:25).

In conclusion, I think that giving each spouse an equal say in decision making allows both spouses to submit freely from the heart and allows for more truthful communication and self-disclosure that leads to healthier and more intimate marriages.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Which marriage model (mutuality or hierarchy) do you think best strengthens intimacy, communication and conflict resolution? Why? 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I’d like to thank Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend for their book Boundaries, which helped me to see that giving (submitting) under compulsion can lead to resentment in marriage and that gender hierarchy teachings manipulate wives into offering this type of submission to their husbands.

Kevin Giles, a prominent evangelical-egalitarian, has written a lengthy response to the conference.

Giles spends a lot of time discussing Greek words like exousia and authentein. It may seem that continued discussion about such words won’t move the discussion forward. But Giles’ definition of ‘moving forward’ may differ from how others see it. He sees the issue as having the same impact in our society as slavery did last century. Retrospectively, we would not say slave owners and liberationists agreeing to disagree about slavery (but affirming their shared belief in the glory of God, reflected in humanity), is evidence of ‘moving forward’. Likewise, we must do more than simply agree to disagree on different interpretations on the Bible. The slavery example can be called an emotive and inadequate comparison, but ‘the woman issue’ looms large for many women and men in today’s churches.

Giles turns to the Bible, the site of the disagreement, because he must use it to challenge the source of hierarchical-complementarians’ views. As Giles says, ‘To settle the matter the two sides need to sit down and honestly assess the [Biblical] evidence” (p. 34).

As highlighted in his response, some of the Reformed slave owners wouldn’t have changed their views without the convincing presentation of a different interpretation of the Bible.

In egalitarian/complementarian discourse and that of other so-called ‘secondary’ issues, it seems that a dichotomy between unity and truth exists. Evangelicals are wary of unity with other Christians when it seems truth may be compromised, emphasising verses like 2 Tim 4:2-5. On the other hand, other evangelicals and, at the extreme end, liberals, prioritise Christian unity e.g. John 17:21-23. The challenge is: how can we be unified yet hold onto truth?

People on both ‘sides’ emphasise that the truth of their interpretation must supersede unity. People closer to the ‘unity’ end of the spectrum use Paul’s language of ‘first importance’ in 1 Cor 15:3 to differentiate between ‘first order’ and ‘second order’ issues. They label the Gospel a ‘first order’ concern, and the place of women, a ‘second order’ matter. This seems like an apt solution to being unified but not losing truth.

But what happens to a distressed individual when we are unified in our difference of opinion? Discussions of first and second order fail to validate their being. For instance, let’s take Giles’ example:

“Let’s imagine what the Black man would think when a Reformed and evangelical white man in the Apartheid days said to him, ‘the Bible says we are truly equal but your role must always be subordinate to mine. I am born to lead; you are born to be under my authority. Simply because of your skin colour given in birth you can never have a leadership role.’ I suspect the black man, would say to himself, ‘This is a funny kind of equality: it has no content in the world in which I live’” (p 28).

Accordingly, I remain unconvinced by hierarchical-complementarians’ insistence that the nature of a woman’s being, as equal with men, has no bearing on their ‘equal but different’ role. I thus support Groothius’ analysis that function and essence have a dynamic and inseparable relationship. In Groothius’ words,

“Regardless of how hierarchicalists try to explain the situation, the idea that women are equal in their being, yet unequal by virtue of their being, is contradictory and ultimately nonsensical” (Rebecca Groothius, ‘Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997, p.p. 53,55).

How then, do we work with someone of a different view?

Whilst each ‘side’ challenges the views of the other, unity in love and in our purpose of bringing the Gospel to others must be expressed more readily by all.

Here are three suggestions we could all agree on

1) to pray that God would inform our view of Scripture, and change our views as necessary

2) to be open to changing our ideas through discussion

3) to refrain from using a particular position as a ‘badge’ of theological orthodoxy.

In the past, my ‘solution’ to working with hierarchical-complementarians has been to humble myself, giving up any roles I’d like to have, like Christ in Philippians 2. I think this is an appropriate response. But this response itself does not change the situation. In certain contexts, I choose to not grasp social equality with men.

Let me make myself clear: making the Gospel known is of primary importance. But once this is prioritised, the significance of the issue of biblical equality requires that I humbly continue to present a different view. Being told that one’s skin colour prevented you from performing certain ‘roles’ had little currency for many black people. I suspect that many women in today’s churches remain similarly unconvinced.

*I’m aware that the language of ‘sides’ in this post is unhelpful for promoting unity. I apologise that I was unable to find a better term.

Elizabeth Culhane was born in Marvellous Melbourne, Australia’s second biggest (but the best) city in the south of the continent. She studies at Melbourne uni, having just completed a BA in History and Politics, and will continue with History Honours in 2011. She is also undertaking some volunteer work for CMS (Church Missionary Society) interviewing and writing up the stories of former missionaries. She loves God, new and challenging ideas, and books, in that order.

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:16b TNIV, italics added)

Everyone can follow our Good Shepherd directly without any mediators or middlemen. Yet many teach that a husband is supposed to tell his wife what God’s will is for her and their family. This idea that husbands have spiritual authority over their wives can cause ewes to second guess their ability to hear the Shepherd’s voice. These teachings encourage a wife to heed the audible voice of her spouse even when it contradicts the inaudible voice that she is hearing within her spirit. Fallible men can end up usurping the Holy Spirit’s direction for their wives, and wives are encouraged to become followers of men instead of God.

Since many of the decisions that we make in our lives are not clearly a matter of right or wrong but are based on the promptings of the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t it be negligent to tell a wife that she must follow the leadership of her husband unless he asks her to sin? And how does this not convey to wives that they are spiritually inferior to their husbands because they were born female instead of male?

Managed to track down the ‘U tube’ audio of the “What it takes to be a man” message. Pleased to hear that it had such an impact for you personally. The message was in 6×10 minute segments and took a bit of getting through but I got the gist of it. While I can appreciate the guy’s sincerity, passion and belief that this is what the Bible teaches, I did find it very stereotypical, with constant references to manliness and his love for hunting etc. He is right on the money about the western mindset of dating and of how unbiblical and harmful it can be in the development of responsible relationships. Where I strongly disagree with him though is on the issue of men being designed to lead women and to be the sole provider and protector. His premise that until a man is willing to lead and provide for a woman he should not be considering dating a woman, leaves men with the notion that they are destined by God to lead and women are designed to simply follow their lead.

Granted, for some men, possibly yourself included, this seems to give a real purpose for the male role within the marriage, and a lot of what he has to say in that respect is very admirable, but I still hold to the view that “in Christ” men and women are equals which means that each shares the responsibility of leading, discipling and parenting children. Both should be respected and listened to by one another first, and then by the children as they are nurtured within the home. Both have opinions to bring to the table as together they seek to have a home that glorifies the Lord. The danger of this teaching, which I have to admit is very popular, is that a woman can be relegated to the pretty, empty headed and spiritually deficient little thing whose only job in life is to take care of her man by always being there for him and making sure that both she and the home is a place that is attractive to her husband so that he is not tempted to stray.

I will be the first to admit that men, as a general rule, do not step up to the plate and take responsibility within the home, and in that respect messages like this are very timely to motivate men. My concern is that as admirable and passionate as this sounds, it is still culturally rather than biblically motivated. These ideas of family are dated and probably belong in the post war, 1950′s family TV show era. True Biblical injunctions on the other hand are timeless and supra-cultural in that they transcend all cultural, ethnic and class settings. Big words and ideas but what they mean is this; Christ came to fully redeem both men and women from the effects of the curse. Life and work doesn’t have to be difficult and a hard slog as Paul Washer suggests. We are meant to be “in Christ” (as men and women), walking in the spirit, operating from a position of “rest” and total reliance on Him. Both genders are to cultivate the fruit of the Spirit and display a “considering one another, provoking one another to love and good deeds” kind of atmosphere within the home. This can only happen when couples are prepared to be mutually submissive to one another.

So….preparing couples for marriage should include the kind of teaching that doesn’t condemn us to grit our teeth and live out the effects of the curse but should entice and excite us to live in the “new way”, the way of the Spirit, that sets us free and allows both men and women to be all that God wants them to be. The only thing that isn’t easy about this is that we each must give up the rights to our own life and allow Jesus to call the tune. If we are both doing that then it is a win-win situation because each of us is willing to submit to the will of God for our family and for each other. In that sense we can break free of cultural expectations, which exist even in the church, and carve out our own destiny under the guidance of God and His Word. When married couples have the same Christ centred expectations of their relationship, marriage and Kingdom living there is nothing that will create a need for one to have leadership responsibility over the other.

While I’m sure that the above, altered version of a currently popular song would sound very bizarre to our ears, the real lyrics seem to invoke a sweet and innocent nostalgia when the gender is reversed. 

Recently, one of my children invited me to attend her school’s weekly chapel where this song was part of the program. As the students and teachers sang, I chose not to sing along because it conjured up images, for me, of immature brides being given away like merchandise. I grasp that for many people it is nothing more than an innocent, sentimental, figurative description of a daddy letting go of his beloved daughter. Because I understand that the musicians are generally supportive of gender equality, I think that they simply did not think through all of the possible ramifications that these particular words could convey. So while I comprehend that these lyrics were just meant to evoke happy memories and to romanticize “traditional” wedding ceremonies, I can’t help to also perceive that these lyrics may work to devalue women. Consequently, it does not leave a beautiful picture in my mind.

There is within present-day Christianity those who glorify patriarchal families which treat women like perpetual children who will always need adult male guardianship. Men are viewed as the analyzing, discerning brains of the family who get to hear directly from God, while women are viewed as the tender, nurturing heart of the family who get to hear their husbands tell them what God’s will is for them. So the choice of the word “child” in this song causes me to picture a childlike bride who still needs adult supervision and guidance from her more mature groom. Personally, I think it would be better if Christian songs conveyed that the bride is a consenting adult on her wedding night.

The “giving away” of the bride, while figuratively representing the daddy “letting go of his little girl,” can also be a stark reminder of girls who are still literally given (or sold) away. Whether figurative or literal, it still expresses that the bride is a possession even if her daddy has cherished her. The groom is not correspondingly “given away” to his bride. Since free human beings are not possessions, then is the bride not fully human or is she permanently enslaved to men? During the traditional wedding ceremony, the bride is usually walked down the aisle by her dad and delivered over to her awaiting groom. No parallel symbolism occurs for the groom leaving his family. Also, it is the cultural norm for the groom to retain his family name while the bride usually loses or “leaves” hers. Compare these cultural traditions with Genesis where we are told that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 TNIV)

For example, having an egalitarian view for marriage and the church is completely different than what I had taught and been so convinced about for so long. Only a few years ago, you would find me teaching that men should lead and women should follow. I taught it quite passionately — but even so, what always bothered me was that it always required so much defending. I saw the difficulty in the position when it came to couples who didn’t fit the mold. What about couples where the wife is the more naturally gifted leader and the husband, the follower? “Well,” it was explained to me, “the wife needs to hold back and give the husband a chance to lead.” That sounded all right to me theoretically (after all, the wife has the opportunity to ‘deny herself’), but in practical terms, I saw that it just meant that the wife would continue to come up with the ideas and visions and then have to prod and persuade her husband toward those ideas. It often becomes a subtle game of manipulation as she convinces him that something was his idea, because if she were to remain silent (in order to not lead), then they would not go anywhere. But as I have seen it, the wife rarely stays silent in this situation. The reality is that most couples end up having a more egalitarian marriage than they would profess. It just wouldn’t work if pure hierarchy was the modus operandi. God really has given women brains, gifts and visions — and without her voicing them, a couple really might possibly miss out on God’s will.

I can see though how despite encountering these real-life obstructions to the complementarian mindset, revision might not take place. When I think of a Christian community which I was involved with for many years, I just think of how its culture is built on the hierarchical way of life, and if things were to change, it could cause the whole structure to crumble.

To revise when God gives you new revelation requires true humility and courage. It means you have to admit you were wrong somewhere — and it means you need courage to step forward in a whole new direction.

In what ways have you had to make revisions in your life as you have followed God in your journey toward biblical equality?