I am not a fan of labels. I’m kind of annoyed that I can’t just call myself a Christian and that have enough meaning to be a sufficient label. For the sake of this discussion, I will label myself a reformed, evangelical complementarian. When I use the term complementarian, I mean that my conviction is that God created both male and female in His image, He gave to each different strengths and obligations to evidence different aspects of His character, and in marriage, He commands husbands to reflect something about His Head and wives His Body, which includes wives submitting to their husbands. God has limited the office of elder to men only (and not just any man, I should add). And women need to stay home and have babies.
Just kidding on that last part.
For some reason, I am not concerned with influencing egalitarians to my position as I am with encouraging complementarians to examine theirs carefully in light of what Scripture does and does not say. Maybe that’s because I have long experience with churches and groups that take a good, true Bible teaching and manage to pervert it by sloppily adding to it their own extra-Biblical notions, subtly influenced by a personal agenda they may not even recognize. If anyone really wants to think of themselves as having a “Biblical” position, they need to CONSTANTLY reevaluate themselves against the Word, because we all are deceived into not recognizing the ways we warp away from the Word left to ourselves.
I love meditating on what God has called me to be as the Helper after His own heart that is suitable for my husband. I have watched the power of laying down my life in submission and speaking in my husband’s love language of respect. And I am moved by thinking of Christ’s profound love for His Bride as I watch the interplay of love and submission in my home. These are precious doctrines to me. But too often, I watch these ideas misused and misapplied by complementarians in ways that make my concerns about egalitarians pale in comparison.
So here, fellow complementarian, are some concerns I have that I think (and it is only my personal, humble opinion) undermine the complementarian position. And if you are reading as an egalitarian, here I admit that the other side does get some things quite wrong , yet I believe there is still value--really beautiful value--to those controversial words to women—help, submit, respect, and so forth.
1) Problem number 1 is calling this debate a gospel issue. Now it’s true that the interplay between husbands and wives in the home is a TESTIMONY of the gospel as it reflects the nature of Christ’s profound love for the church. But being a testimony of the gospel is not the same as being the gospel. I said in another post that the gospel informs everything, but it is not everything. And we start entering dangerous territory quickly when we are not precise in how we talk about the link between the gospel and the complementarian position.
2) Advocating husbands “ruling” over their wives. I gladly call my husband the head of our home. I’m happy when he leads. But “rule” is the terminology of the curse in Gen. 3:16, not the vision presented in Ephesians 5 of what marriage looks like that is in Christ between imitators of God. I talked about it here and enjoyed the follow up discussion.
3) denying women deacons. Complementarians undermine at least half of the arguments against women being elders when we do this. But enough was said in this post about it.
4) denying mutual submission. EVERYONE in Christ is called to submit (Ephesians 5:21). EVERYONE in Christ is called to love (Ephesians 5:2). If I am not called to love my husband, then that means about 50 verses written in general terms (including the Greatest Command) don’t apply to me as a wife. That’s ridiculous! Similarly, the instructions to submit, lay down our lives, and sacrificially serve one another are everywhere in Scripture and clearly transcend gender. In the marriage relationship, husbands are called to give a particular example of love, and wives to give a particular example of submission.
The word for submit in Ephesians 5 means basically arranging yourself in formation under your leader. It’s a willing movement of self in line with another. It cannot be demanded and still be called submission. I willingly lay down my life and rights for my husband. But if he demanded it or attempted to force it, that would not be submission. That’d be oppression -- when submission in the image of Christ ends and the oppressive rule of the man predicted in the curse of Genesis 3:16 begins.
Christ demonstrates this difference for us when He “lay down His life” (I John 3:16) for us. Laying down His life was so very different from having it taken from Him. The Bible makes it clear that Christ willingly gave up the ghost and laid down His life. It was not taken from Him unwillingly. The fact that He had the power and right to do otherwise is what makes His sacrifice so … remarkable? Noteworthy? I can’t think of a big enough word for it. He LAID His life down for us! It’s profound. And when I, wife of Andy, WILLINGLY lay down my rights (and it will always be willingly, for my husband though strong willed and sometimes ornery is definitely NOT oppressive) I am being like CHRIST. Like the church too. But so very much like Christ.
I value the facets of the character of God that I am uniquely equipped to reflect as a woman. I love the doctrines surrounding what I was created to be in perfection. I have gained much wisdom from understanding the curse of Genesis 3:16 and all the ways left to myself that I reflect it. And I treasure deeply God’s calling me back to Himself and reclaiming and restoring His image in me that was marred by the fall. But get it right, complementarians. Handle the Word precisely. Because we undermine so much of great beauty and worth in the Body of Christ when we don’t.
(There are other sub issues where complementarians read into Scripture and impose standards on themselves that Scripture does not. But that’s not so much a complementarian problem as just a universal tendency toward legalism. So I’ll save for another post our often unhelpful projections from silence in Scripture on the topics of working women, childbirth, organic cooking, educational choices, and so forth.)
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Agreed.
such a good post to read. this is a common discussion in the circles within which i travel- non-christian women are befuddled at my perspectives of male/female roles. and i love discussing and sharing the above. keep the good stuff comin, wendy.
I think that points 1 and 2 address most clearly the underlying problem I have perceived in complementarianism as it is sometimes expounded. The central problem is that complementarianism has to be elevated to a level of importance as primary as a trinitarian confession because as espoused and practiced by many complementarians a sweeping theology of gender is the only bulwark conservative evangelical Protestants can devise to prevent women from being considered as elders? Why? Well, because to invoke apostolic precedent or tradition would be making a "Catholic" defense of women not being elders. We are Protestants and don't want to be identified as having a "Catholic" apologetic for church polity so we instead devise a grandiose theology of gender to deal with a problem that never needed this level of ontological discourse on the nature of gender! Instead we get a rebuttal that nearly every woman who had a significant leadership role in the history of God's people is either 1) the exception that proves the rule of complementarianism or 2) is someone who is proof for why women shouldn't have major leadership roles the women in category 1 notwithstanding. Paradoxically some men who are passionate about this, nevertheless, consider Margaret Thatcher to be great because she wasn't a liberal. This is an example of how and why complementarianism is often overcompensating for the problems that conservative Christians (in all advisable senses of the term "conservative") want to solve at an ecclesial level.
Sandra, I have thought about that a lot. I am not comfortable with it myself, though strong complementarian male leaders have given me the opportunity on several occasions. I have done it twice. But my personal preference (conviction?) is to speak/teach women only -- at least in a church setting. I teach grown men all the time at the community college. If I remember correctly, Piper distinguishes the "not teaching a man" issue I Tim. 2 as specifically teaching with authority as an elder, not general dissemination of information. I am not sure it is that easily reconciled though.
Wendy, I really appreciate what you've written here. I think you have nailed some of the primary pitfalls of complementarian theology.
In the past I have identified myself as complementarian because of the conviction that God created men and women differently for a reason, but it's becoming more and more difficult to identify myself as either complementarian or egalitarian. There is such a WIDE spectrum among each category, and sometimes I find myself falling somewhere in between.
As luck would have it, one of the theology professors at my seminary is presenting a paper today called "The Trinity Without Tiers" in which he'll be examining a non-subordinationist understanding of the Son's relationship to the Father, and other Trinitarian dynamics that might be used to shed light on gender relationships. I'm excited to see if he shares anything particularly revelational on this very complex topic.
Wendy, thanks for your words here. Your number four has sparked some very interesting discussions with close friends and family members on what the call to mutual submission means within the family and church community.
Sharon, I'd be very interested to see a copy of your professor's paper, if it becomes available. I know some believe that teaching a functional subordination of the Son to the Father throughout eternity is a version of semi-Arianism, but I've 1) always seen it as something that flows from a proper understanding of the covenant of redemption and 2) only seen it as tangentially related to gender roles, since the Bible never equates the function of women to that of the Son and men to that of the Father, but rather wives are compared to the church and husbands to Christ.
I agree with you that the more I look at the positions on gender, the more I see a spectrum and mis-understanding of words all around.
Katie, I'll let you know how it goes! I think he'll be addressing the ways in which the Trinity is interpreted as a model for the larger church body. Based off of the description of the paper, I assume he'll only be talking about general male-female relationships since the Christ-Church model is limited to marriage. My guess is that he'll be examining how the Body of Christ is meant to reflect the nature of the Trinity in which there is no hierarchy of roles, but I'll let you know what I find out!
Thanks for your thoughts Wendy, and thanks to the other ladies for more interesting discussion!
Oops. I addressed Katie but should have said Sharon. Or Sharon and Katie. And Megan. And Sandra. I love a discussion when people actually read each others' response and respond back.
Sharon, thanks so much for sharing this!! My initial reaction is that I totally disagree with point 1 (isn't their something inherent in the titles Father and Son that implies role and hierarchy?) but totally embrace point 2. I'll think on it more though.
Thanks, WtH. The way I usually hear subordination in the Trinity applied to husbands/wives is not that the first instructs the second, but just that wives ought to consider the fact that Christ submitted His will to the Father as evidence that submission in general is not a substandard thing of which to be ashamed. I haven't heard it taught that BECAUSE the Trinity has roles and subordination that husbands and wives should to. I have heard it taught and taught it myself that the Trinity gives us examples from every angle of what we who are created in God's image and being conformed now back to His image should look like. But that's pretty basic. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
Wow. Great, helpful, encouraging discussion. Glad others are thinking through all this too.
How interesting Sharon! I wrote a paper in seminary on the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Here are a few quotes I found in my research:
-Grudem makes this application, “And if the Father and Son can be both equal and different in this way, then husband and wife in the image of God can be equal and different too.”
- Bruce Ware sums it up nicely: “Here in the Trinity, rather, we see hierarchy without hubris, authority with no oppression, submission that is not servile, and love that pervades every aspect of the divine life. Unity and diversity, identity and distinction,
sameness and differences, melody and harmony--these are qualities that mark the rich texture of the life of the one God who is three.”
-Thomas Schreiner writes, “Paul added the headship of God over Christ right after asserting the headship of man over woman in order to teach that the authority of man over woman does not imply the inferiority of women or the superiority of men.” (1 Cor. 11:3)
I love your article.
I call myself an egalitarian. However, as one of your readers has said: "There is such a WIDE spectrum among each category, and sometimes I find myself falling somewhere in between."
I have no problem with the words: help, submit, respect. I truly hope that I exhibit these qualities and actions towards others and especially to my husband. To me these are Christian "virtues".
I guess we differ on whether a woman can be a church leader, or what it means for the husband to be the "head" of the wife.
One thing we definitely agree on is that the discussion and debate about Complementarianism versus Egalitarianism is NOT a Gospel issue.
Post a Comment