The Bent of a Woman
I have no delusions that issues of gender equality has a simple solution. “Read your Bible. Whatever it says, do.” Yes, this is a nice way to go in a world where things are not so complicated, where sinners are all trying their darnedest to not sin, where repentance and change is the norm. But things are not always so simple. Yet the Bible does speak and sometimes what it says we don’t really like. Give us time and we will find a “better” answer. If it makes you feel bad about yourself, your gender, or your gifts, let’s fix it. We don’t want anyone to feel bad.
“Wives submit to your husband” (Eph. 5:22). ”I don’t allow a woman to teach” (1 Tim 2:12). ”The husband is the head of the wife” (Eph. 5:23). Don’t these represent the problem? Advancements and new discoveries nuance these passages taking away some of the sting, but in the end, you have to refresh your brain each time the issue is brought up to remind yourself how it does not mean what it seems to mean. Believe me, I have gone there. I am one who loves to take away stings. I still go there. I don’t want anyone to feel bad. I like happy people. Shinny happy people holding hands.
Yet, this issue does create quite a sting, doesn’t it? “What about when my husband is abusive, do I submit?” “What if a women is particularly gifted, does she not have equal opportunity?” “What about when no men will lead, do we just have no leaders?” “What about when my husband is leading the children away from God, do I not tell them to follow me instead?” These are all questions to which I don’t have a one-size-fits-all answer. In fact, when I have tried to make the matter a simple issue of following what the Bible says, I have regretted it. What the Bible says is not always that simple.
But I do believe that there is a biblical direction that we fail to take as a society. Value. What do we value?
Roles. What are the best roles? What is the best kind of job? What is the most dignified way to serve?
“Dignified” and “serve.” Do those two words even belong together?
Men, I am going to say something to you that has the potential to offend you, but it probably won’t. I don’t always trust you with certain things. I think that men have problems and deficiencies that are unique to males. In fact, I think that men are grossly deficient in many areas. Primarily, I don’t think men are very sensitive. I don’t think men value emotion and relationships as we should. I don’t think men are always very tender. I think we have a one track mind that can be neglectful. Oftentimes, we just miss the boat. We are bent in other directions. Because of this, there are many things that I don’t think men are suited for in the same way as women.
Men are not nurturers by nature. Sure, some might have this giftedness, but the gender as a whole fights against it. No, I am not limiting this to babies and cute clothes and fixing the hair of the children before church (although I don’t want to neglect such either), but men don’t have the ability to nurture society in general. Yes, they can lead, focus, and problem solve, but they cannot nurture. They don’t provide the beauty to life the way that women do. They cannot decorate the world with care and emotion the way that women can. The scent of a woman cannot be found in the male species. Yes we care, yes we express emotion, but we simply don’t do so in the same way that women do.
Can you put a price on the scent of women? Can you pay for what they bring to the table of life?
My children are the most valuable things on this earth. They are more valuable to me than my job, my ministry, or any of my lofty plans to win the world to Christ. They, along with my wife, are my primary responsibility. I lead them, I teach them, I play with them. It is all good. But that which my wife does for them is much different. Dare I say that it rivals my importance? The emotional stability that she gives, I cannot. Why? Because I am not gifted in this area. Because I am a man. I don’t have the natural reactions that she has. I don’t sense the needs of my children the way she does. Yes, I can hug, kiss, say “I’m so sorry” when they fall down, but I can’t do it the way that Kristie does. This nuance of care that she brings makes a world of difference. It complements mine without competing. It is a different type of gift.
What price do you pay for this? How much does emotional stability cost? What is the worth of the thoughts of a woman?
Men and women are different, there is no doubt. The only time that people act as if they are not different is when issues of superiority come up. “Women can do everything a man can do!” I agree. Women can do everything a man can do. The question is why would they want to? Where is the pride in being a women? Why don’t women see their value?
When asked what women like most about being a woman, they gave a list that revealed their passions the way God created them. Emotions, nurturing, femininity, child bearing, compassion. Can a man do these things? Sure. But can is not the issue. The issue is are men bent to do these things? I would answer no. In the same way, I would suggest that women can do things that men are able to do, but it is not their bent.
But men and women alike seem to devalue the bent of a woman. When this occurs, their is a fight for the more prized bent—”greater seat.”
The worst thing that men can do is to dignify their own bent or seat by saying to women, ”We will make room for you in our seat. You have just as much right to sit here as we do.” This is another way of saying, “Yes, well, our seat is really the best. Thanks for noticing. Here, you can sit in the best seat as well.” In doing so, I believe we are communicating something very unbiblical. We are saying that God may have placed this bent within you, but it is not very good or necessary, at least not as good or necessary as ours.
“Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.”
Fundamentally, I believe that the curse caused both sexes to undervalue the bent of a women. Because of the fall, men and women both inherit a new bent—a sinful bent that says, “Women, your bent is not valuable.”
Being redeemed in Christ gives us equality in purpose, design, and dignity—not sameness. Of all people, Christians should be able to recognize the mutual value of the sexes, understanding that they are complementary by God’s design. I believe that anything less is a sinful result of the fall.
There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.
Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- The Bent of a Woman
- Do I Allow a Woman to Teach Men?
- Feminists and Traditionalists in the Real World
- Doing missions when dying is gain
- Men and Women: What they like and don’t like—and why it matters

Sue on 02 May 2008 at 2:38 am #
Michael,
This is an overwhelmingly sad post. Didn’t Jesus say to Peter “Feed my lambs.” The good Shepherd carries the lambs in his bosom.
He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. Is. 40:11
The Bible is full of a human tenderness that is to be recognized in both genders.
Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers? Num. 11:12
Isn’t that what God asks the leader to do?
And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: Is 49:23
But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: 1 Thess 2:7
Perhaps men today have been alienated from their more tender emotions by modern society. It is really sad.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 2:48 am #
Sue, I agree that men do not value emotions. But I don’t think that men can or necessarily should strive to have emotions in the same way as women. The emotive contribution of a women is unique. We should all be tender, but there is something special about the tenderness of a woman that expresses the imago dei in a way that men don’t.
minnowspeaks on 02 May 2008 at 3:31 am #
CMP said: “Being redeemed in Christ gives us equality in purpose, design, and dignity—not sameness. Of all people, Christians should be able to recognize the mutual value of the sexes, understanding that they are complementary by God’s design. I believe that anything less is a sinful result of the fall.”
And for that reason you are absolutely wrong in your conclusion that some roles are designed for women and some roles are designed for men. I agree with Sue. This is indeed a very sad post. I actually had tears running down my cheeks as I read it.
Eglatarians are not asking to have women sit in the same chairs with men. (That is a complementarian bias of what egalitarians are saying). We are saying we should allow men and women to share the same table. We should recognize that because they have a unique and equally wonderful perspective what they have should be share with the whole. Maybe the whole would actually be enriched. Maybe a more complete picture could be seen. Maybe the Body would quit limping around like a stroke victim.
Timothy on 02 May 2008 at 4:34 am #
Thank you for this post Michael. This post (and the series on manhood and womanhood) has been very helpful. I am most grateful for your humble, yet uncompromising approach to the issue.
Keep up the good work, brother.
Lisa R on 02 May 2008 at 6:07 am #
Michael, thanks for continuing to flesh this out more. I am seriously puzzled at the sadness expressed by my sisters since even the world recognizes there is a fundamental difference between the way men and women function. Hence the book, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”. And the fact that biblical instruction to men is different than the instruction to women, IMHO underscores that we do indeed have different bents.
We complement each other. When God said, it is good for man not to be alone, I believe that is broadly applicable to humanity. Our gender specific contributions coalesce to create a beautiful whole. Men are deficient in some areas. Women are deficient in some areas. This does not make women inferior nor does it make men superior. But we do need each other.
In terms of the roles, is this not also true of the trinitarian model? There is an ontological equality but a difference in roles. Would we dare say that any member of the Godhead is denied access to divine leadership or deemed inferior in any way?
JoanieD on 02 May 2008 at 6:11 am #
Michael said about men, “They cannot decorate the world with care and emotion the way that women can.” That’s kind of a cute thing to say. My husband leaves all the Christmas decorating to me. (I know that isn’t the kind of “decorating” you were referring to.) The only thing he does is help me get the tree up. I don’t really mind although I would like him to help me haul all the boxes in from the garage. But he also does not do dishes, clean the house, pay the bills, haul returnable bottles to the store, bring the trash to the pick-up spot, do the laundry, do the raking, the gardening, or at this point bring any money into the house. He does mow the lawn and snowblows the snow. It surely must be easier to “submit” to a man who does bring loving “leadership” to the relationship. Folks may say, “Well, you ARE submitting.” But what I am doing is not a “happy” submitting. I try to be “good” about it but I know I am not succeeding. I pray that things get better. I would like us to be more of a team. He says he wants us to be a team too, but his idea of a team is just that I would think his thoughts and do things the way he wants them done, preferably without his asking me to do them. (Those are not my words…that is really what he says.)
And this will be the last of my “complaining” about my husband. I would guess that some the males out there (and maybe females too) reading this must figure I am a bad wife for my husband to be treating me this way.
Joanie D.
minnowspeaks on 02 May 2008 at 6:35 am #
I do not think you a bad wife or a bad person. I think you are brave and possibly in need of a hug. When you shared some of your personal struggle on a different post and a few said they would pray for you and your husband I found myself thinking (while I was away from my computer going about the dailiness of my life) about how much more weighty words like submit and honor are for some people. I wish I could take you out for coffee JoanieD. and I pray you have people in your life you do go out for coffee with you.
Lord, be present with Joanie today. Thank you for this beautiful, vulnerable woman. Thank you for the witness of her struggle and the testimony of her faith. Lord, encourage her today in a tangible way, that she might know she is not walking alone. Amen.
dac on 02 May 2008 at 6:58 am #
“Fundamentally, I believe that the curse caused both sexes to undervalue the bent of a women.”
I agree. I think there are differences, but I think often individuals, individual churchs and even denominations take basic biblical differnces and then start adding to them, cloaking them in ridiculas biblical interpretations, which by themselves denys the sufficiency of the bible.
Lisa R on 02 May 2008 at 7:01 am #
Joanie,
I am in wholehearted agreement with Minnow’s prayer and encouragement. And I also prayer for the peace of God, that passes all understanding, to guard your heart and mind and as you pour out your heart to Him.
Joanie, I write this with tears in my eyes because I have been exactly where you are. It is not easy, I know. Especially knowing that in your heart you desire something better, something different.
But hang on Joanie. It is during these times that God does His best work in us. It is during these times that He pulls us closer to His bosom to show us His love, despite what circumstances would seem to communicate. I want to share with you the lyrics to a song a wrote during my dark time, called Silence.
I’m waiting by the silence is getting longer
And the voices that are raised against me are yelling louder
And their asking me where can He be
When will He rescue you
Does He care and see what you’re going through
Or will He just be silent
Now the silence pushes out a voice in me that’s getting stronger
And its telling me that what I see is just a test
And won’t last longer
Than God’s perfect timing will allow
The promises that can be found
When I open my heart and lift my hands
And embrace the silence
In the wilderness, is where we find
The abundance of our hearts and minds
And it gives us the opportunity to make it right
And to travel down the path
That will break the silence
I’m waiting but my heart will fear no longer
‘Cause the silence proves to me that in the end
I’ll come out stronger
As I embrace the silence
As I embrace the silence
Peace be with you my sister. I will keep you in my prayers.
JoanieD on 02 May 2008 at 7:06 am #
Thanks, minnowspeaks. I do have my two sisters who live about an hour away and I see them maybe once a month or so. And we email. They know a little bit about what I am going through, but I do not want to burden them with it all because they would worry too much. I have had some friends who have moved from the area, so I don’t really have friends to do coffee with. So, you can see why prayer is so important for me. God is good and cushions me with his love. Someday that awareness of his love will be a constant for me. Right now, I must return again and again to that well as a reminder that God’s love is right here all the time and I bring a little bit of that healing water to the world, I hope.
And by the way, I know I have friends and family that wonder why I stay with Tom. In spite of his mental health issues, alcohol issues, control issues, he really does have a heart that WANTS to do well and he tells me he ADORES me quite often. It is so hard to have a hard heart towards someone who says he adores you. HE may actually be the more loving one in this relationship, in spite of how he behaves. (If I could make a little heart icon here, I would.)
Thank you for your love and concern. Peace and love to all of you out there.
Oh, I see as I was writing this, Lisa was writing hers, so thank you very much, Lisa, and that is a beautiful poem. Thanks for sharing that with me and us.
Joanie D.
Jerry B on 02 May 2008 at 7:29 am #
I think what Michael is saying is pretty close to the mark. Since the death of my wife three years ago, I have struggled with my teen daughters, and largely failed to fill that hole that she left. She was a consummate caregiver, both in the home and professionally, and I am not. I am a very good provider, protector. I have rescued them, fed them, clothed them, prayed for them, loved them, but I cannot nurture them the way she did. Oh, I can do it from time to time, but it’s just not me. I have had to spend an awful lot of time trying to come to grips with this, while asking God for those “out of character” moments when I might be able to provide some much needed tenderness or a long chat with a daughter who has things to say at the end of a hard day.
Ruth Tucker on 02 May 2008 at 7:49 am #
Michael,
I’m on the run this morning and haven’t been able to read through this blog as carefully as I should, but I’m glad you emphasized the passage, “Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you,” as part of the curse. That verse is so true throughout the OT. Men “rule over” wives. But Jesus has redeemed us from the curse.
shane magee on 02 May 2008 at 8:01 am #
.
shane magee on 02 May 2008 at 8:02 am #
surely no-one is arguing that men and women are the same, are they? the struggle in society (and especially the church) is for the two sexes to be esteemed equally and, regardless of general broad-brushstroke proclivity, for there to be no societal role which is utterly barred to an individual simply because of their gender. this seems really elementary to me. so the “problem” of the ‘gender texts’ in scripture takes on the same essential nature as the ’slavery texts’ and we treat them with a similar hermeneutic.
it is one thing to say that black people have more rhythm, than white people; it is an entirely different matter to argue that because of this “bent” they can only be dancers and athletes in our brave new world! ridiculous logic.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 8:46 am #
Michael,
In your classes, you are so irenic in not creating “straw men.” But here, this “sameness” is just a straw man that I can’t seem to clarify to where you can see it. I really strive to understand where you’re coming from, but I’m not feeling that the other way. I thought I was being heard until my position was again stated as wanting to be “the same” as men.
Clarifications, which I will put “out there” and hope for the best:
1. I do NOT think men and women are the same. You asked us not to put what we loved about being women in the comments, but I would’ve had a long list. I am a girlie girl. I love my make-up and my pink and my shoes and purses!
2. The only time I’m told I want us to be “the same” is when I request an equal say in the direction of my home or church. This is NOT sameness! It’s equality. If we WERE the same I wouldn’t NEED a say because it would already be going the same direction.
Michael, the essential difference between complementarians and egalitarians is the distribution of power. Yes, egalitarians want the same (equal) power. Yes, complementarians believe men should have more power, which is different. But that does not mean that egalitarians believe men and women are the same in every way. Maybe some do (I haven’t read any that do) but I don’t.
A wise professor once told me, “The group that doesn’t want to talk about power is the one who has it.” That is proving so true in this discussion.
britphil on 02 May 2008 at 8:47 am #
Am I missing a trick?
Has “National Gender Difference Week” bee introduced over on your side of the pond.
I understand Michael that you are probably responding to some of the threads you are reading by posting another gender based thread but even a cursory glance through the subjects for the last week it does feel a bit unbalanced.
“Men, I am going to say something to you that has the potential to offend you, but it probably won’t. I don’t always trust you with certain things. I think that men have problems and deficiencies that are unique to males. In fact, I think that men are grossly deficient in many areas. Primarily, I don’t think men are very sensitive. I don’t think men value emotion and relationships as we should. I don’t think men are always very tender. I think we have a one track mind that can be neglectful. Oftentimes, we just miss the boat. We are bent in other directions.”
Michael I am not offended in the slightest, preach it brother! What I am offended far more by is the argument that goes something like…this is what we men are like and only we men can lead the church. If by logical extension the church is going to be solely led by people who are grossly deficie in many areas, who don’t value emotion and relationships as we should etc…well if that’s the case, I am not sure it is a church where I would want to belong, or encourage/persaude/convince/urge others to belong to!
Maybe that is one of the reasons why the emerging church has so many adherents becasue they feel far more comfortable encourage people to be part of a church which attempts to be both both strongly led and carefully nurtured in equal measure.
…and you like what I am about to say even less…so look away now!!
“What about when my husband is abusive, do I submit?”
No! Never! For me this is a thinly veiled excuse for permission of domestic violnce. Why is this question always framed towards getting the abused person to feel as though the onus is on them.. Why d I so seldom hear the wquestion “When my husband is abusive, how do I challennge the behaviour, and how do you, as male leaders and human beings actively challenge and confront his behaviour?
We need to stand up far more passionately for wives within our churches and outside of them whose husbands do not love them as Christ loved the church…ie sacrifically, unconditionally, lovingly, passionate
ly. Why is so much attention paid towards trying to persuade the woman to stay in than abusive relationship rather than the man to change his pattern of behaviour
“What if a women is particularly gifted, does she not have equal opportunity?
Yes…provided that the gifting is matched by an appropriate humilty, let her loose
…and quickly!
“What about when no men will lead, do we just have no leaders?”
“It would appear to me that you have a choice…just drift on is one choice…close the church immediately is another,…..or if there are suitable gifted women with the correct attitude, appoint them as leaders.
female leaders….you may be surprised to find that the declining trend is quickly eeversed.
In fact you have cleverly avoided asking probably the most important question of all…what when thappens when the male leaders lead very badly…and show no signs of being willing to stand down either 9a) in favour of better potential male leaders or lbetter leaders of both genders?
“What about when my husband is leading the children away from God, do I not tell them to follow me instead?”
I agree that this is a difficult one…the complementarian has no choice I would say than to argue that the father has to be submitted to and mother has to agree to the child being led away from Gofd. ThI feel this is an issue for a complementarian rather than an eglalitarian. I don’t see how logically you can argue iany other way! The latter would have no qualms about discussing the issue at great length and trying to reach a suitable compromise which both sides agree to live with!
“Eglatarians are not asking to have women sit in the same chairs with men. (That is a complementarian bias of what egalitarians are saying). We are saying we should allow men and women to share the same table. We should recognize that because they have a unique and equally wonderful perspective what they have should be share with the whole. Maybe the whole would actually be enriched. Maybe a more complete picture could be seen. Maybe the Body would quit limping around like a stroke victim.
Minnow…Amen sister!
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 8:48 am #
CMP,
I’m frustrated, but I want to put out there that I still think you’re great. This is, as we’ve said before “a difficult issue” to get to where we feel like we’re at least understanding the other’s position.
jerome on 02 May 2008 at 9:06 am #
I like the post. I am saddened to see that most replies to this topic are based upon feelings and not scripture. We are after all talking about what the word of God says on this issue and not necessarily what we as a society or individually feel should be done.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 9:23 am #
Brit,
It does seem to me that you are presupposing too much upon me. I think many may have a mold in their mind about what a complementarian is supposed to say and do not help the issue. The same can be said about the egalitarians.
Got to go, or I would say more, but read the posts here that talk about divorce and you will see where I stand on some of these issues, especially abuse. In short, a complementarian does not say to stay in an abusive marraige.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/marraige-and-family/
Abigail on 02 May 2008 at 10:09 am #
Yet the Bible does speak and sometimes what it says we don’t really like. Give us time and we will find a “better” answer. If it makes you feel bad about yourself, your gender, or your gifts, let’s fix it. We don’t want anyone to feel bad.
That sounds dangerous. Are you saying it’s okay for women to be made to feel inferior because of their gender?
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 10:11 am #
Most of the original post is about the instinct that some people have about how men and women best function together. If anyone has heard of Prepare/Enrich (we did their premarital counseling), they have some great empirical research on the subject. Here’s a portion of an article about it:
“Dr. David H. Olson, Professor Emeritus, Family Social Science,
University of Minnesota, compiled a national survey based on
21,501 married couples using a comprehensive marital assessment
tool called ENRICH. Th is national survey, published in the
year 2000, represents one of the largest and most comprehensive
analyses of marital strengths and stumbling blocks. Couples
were asked to complete 30 background questions and 165 specific
questions that focused on 20 significant marital issues. Th is survey
identified the top ten strengths of happy marriages and the
top ten stumbling blocks for married couples. Olson claims that,
by using these top ten strengths, it is possible to discriminate
between happy and unhappy marriages with 93% accuracy.
Another important discovery was the growing importance of
an equal role sharing marriage. Most of the couples (81%) where
both spouses perceived the relationship as egalitarian were happily
married, while most of the couples (82%) where both spouses perceived
their relationship as traditional were mainly unhappy.²?
Sue on 02 May 2008 at 10:15 am #
Jerome
I have based all my responses on scripture. Jesus asked his disciples to nurture, to shepherd. In the metaphor of shepherd we see nurture and protection as integral to the role. If men and women are so different then we badly need the ministry of both.
A young woman badly abused walks into a church with a motherly middleaged woman in the pulpit and feels the protection of her care and the respect that the male members of the team accord her.
Every time an abused wife submits she reinforces the husband’s use of power. It works for him so he does it again. Nothing could be unhealthier. And yet, to resist, to refuse to do some ungodly thing can up the ante and endanger the wife. It is better if the boundaries are laid before they marry. Thus far and no further.
Lundy Bancroft in his books details the causes of abuse. Although he finds this one thing in men across the spectrum, in all religions and denominations, among the unchurched - it is male entitlement. If we say women must submit more, we preach male entitlement and we therefore expose some women somewhere to increased abuse.
What can be worse than a church that preaches the subordination of women and does not provide a safe house for those hit on the way home from church.
I have heard too many stories, lived too long, seen too much. I am so sorry for those who still suffer in the belief that God wants this humiliation for them.
dac on 02 May 2008 at 10:30 am #
Sue (and others)
No one (here) has said women are to stay in abusive relationships. That people (and church’s) have screwed things up is not a sufficient argument against scripture
A fundamental presupposition (of mine, at least) is that you can’t ignore scripture. You have to deal with what is written, and try to make sense of it as a whole.
There is too much scripture that clearly sets apart specific roles for men and women. Either you make it work in your world view, or you have to cut it out of your bible.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 10:34 am #
Sue,
This is a hard one for me, because I don’t see complementarianism as inherently abusive at all, but at the same time, I think almost no churches (complementarian or egalitarian) do enough about abuse.
First thing for every church, complementarian or egalitarian — GET A SERVICES COORDINATOR FOR ABUSE VICTIMS. Come up with a plan for what will happen when someone calls them. Then get one of those posters with the signs that your are being abused and the phone number of who to call for every stall in the women’s bathroom. If everyone did just that it would be a great start.
I think that it’s worth mentioning that abuse should be referenced by every person discussing submission because you need to assume that there are people reading who are victims of abuse. I LOVE that the complementarians and egalitarians on here have made it clear that we stand together against abuse. That needs to happen every single time.
As an aside, I have a personal feeling that the people in the world who know the least about abuse are good men. Why? Because it’s in an abuser’s best interest to hide it from them! They would stand up to the abuse if they were more aware. When I was being abused I was “not allowed” to call any of my male friends. Now I see it wasn’t motivated by jealousy but by fear of being “found out” by guys who had my back!
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 10:37 am #
DAC,
You said, “There is too much scripture that clearly sets apart specific roles for men and women. Either you make it work in your world view, or you have to cut it out of your bible.”
The problem I’m having here is that the game keeps changing. When I suggested we discuss the word “head” in the Bible, Michael said it is better to leave that out of the discussion and talk “in theory” about whether men and women work best in different roles. So now we’re talking about how it works practically and you’re saying we’re not following the Bible.
If you want to talk about the scriptures, let’s talk about them. If you want to talk about average differences that should make roles apparent to all of us, let’s talk about that. But let’s not keep moving the target.
I also want to reiterate my request from several blogs ago that we all respect each other’s desire to live according to scripture. We wouldn’t be spending all this time on a dorky theology blog if we didn’t! It’s a tough issue and we’re all just trying to work it out.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 10:42 am #
Another interesting quote on the practical side:
“Ashton Applewhite, author of Cutting Loose: Why Women
Who End Th eir Marriages Do So Well, addresses the personal and
sociopolitical aspects of marriage. Citing a 1995 survey of 4,000
women, she notes that women in egalitarian marriages are by
far the happiest. Stephanie von Hirschberg, senior editor of the
New Woman survey, writes that sharing power and responsibility
“seems to be crucial to a woman’s happiness in marriage.”²²”
Abigail on 02 May 2008 at 10:42 am #
CMP, you wax eloquent about the differences between men and women but I don’t see what any of those differences has to do with women’s suitedness for teaching in a religious setting, or with decision making in a marriage. How would having equal say in decisions like what car to buy or where the kids should go to school or what color drapes to get or how to spend the evening detract from a woman’s femininity? What flaws do women have that makes their judgment on such things less trustworthy?
You act as if women are wanting to act in manly ways, but most of the egalitarians here have a much more modest request — they simply want a woman’s decision-making ability to be recognized as equal to a man’s. It’s not about abandoning nurturing roles in favor of aggressive, testosterone-driven activities like competing in sports or managing a company or . . . arguing over the internet.
Although oddly enough, most people would acknowledge that women can do those things and still be feminine and even express their femininity in the midst of them!
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 10:49 am #
My assumption is that if people dignified the bents of the sexes then there would hardly be an issue between the two positions.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 10:50 am #
Dac already said this, but I will say it as well.
You have to recognize that people may attempt to use a distorted view of complementarianism to justify their sinful dominance. But this is not an argument against the system—not even a pragmatic one since it is not representative of true complementarianism. Remember, complementarianism is not patriarchialism.
Whether or not you agree with this position, you would admit that you never judge a position based on “the worst of.” The Charismatic movement (of which I am not a part) has suffered from the same perception. Calvinism the same. People automatically suppose that there will be inevitable outcomes that are abusive and argue from them. But these are not really arguments. Having said that, I do think there is a place for pragmatic arguments, but they don’t establish the truthfulness of an issue. Remember, the palatability of a doctrine does not establish its veracity.
This is why I have labored in such a way to present this from a different angle. But sadly many people cannot get out of the perceptual groove that they have created for this position.
dac on 02 May 2008 at 10:55 am #
CMP - I commented on the men submitting to their wives - I am wondering to your view on my take - am I off or on?
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 10:56 am #
About the use of Scripture, we must understand that I don’t want people to approach Scripture with a folk theology about what it means to be complementarian. This will create an adverse reaction and an attempt to only see things the way that they have presupposed they must be.
I believe that the Scriptures are clear on this issue, generally speaking, while not dealing with all the questions that are raised.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 10:59 am #
Dac, which post?
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 11:14 am #
CMP, you said, “My assumption is that if people dignified the bents of the sexes then there would hardly be an issue between the two positions.”
Dr. Belezikian (If I misspelled that, it’s about time….) refers to himself as a “non-hierarchical complementarian.” I think that’s an appropriate title for egalitarians, and one that highlights our similarities.
We agree that:
–Women and men, on average, are different.
–Women and men are ontologically equal.
–Women and men each have strengths and weaknesses, many of which can be attributed to gender.
–Women and men reflect the image of God.
–Abuse is unacceptable.
–Submission cannot and should not be demanded.
–Women’s average strengths are systematically devalued by our society.
I think we’ve come a long way!
We disagree:
–That men have a bent toward leadership
–That kephale means leader or authority
–That men should not have an attitude of submission toward their wives
–That marriages work better if the man is in leadership over the woman
–That men should be responsible for the direction of their life with their wives.
The difficulty in this discussion is clarity, I think, as to what we’re talking about. But I think we’re getting somewhere in many ways!
Abigail on 02 May 2008 at 11:28 am #
CMP,
My assumption is that if people dignified the bents of the sexes then there would hardly be an issue between the two positions.
Egalitarians will of course disagree with this. To use shane’s analogy, it’s like saying that if we put enough value on sports and dancing, we could then restrict black people to those roles and no one would mind.
JoshParsley on 02 May 2008 at 11:33 am #
CMP,
Don’t let anyone deter you. You’re right.
Ruth,
Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law. I don’t believe the things that were cursed from the fall have been redeemed, at least as of yet, and turned back the way they were. The obvious example is thorn bushes.
Personally, I don’t think women having pain during child birth and having to submit to their husband is a curse. Why not? Well, because it doesn’t say that God cursed Eve. The only things that God cursed in Gen 3 is the serpent and the ground. It doesn’t explicitly say God cursed Adam or Eve so I feel uncomfortable saying He did. Surely some things were changed from the fall in respect to Adam and Eve’s relationship with God and with one another, but is it because God “cursed” them? Or is it things that God put in order for various reasons?
Either way, even if you see that what happened to Eve after the fall as a curse from God, how do you get around that women still have pain while having children? God lumped that together with the part of the verse CMP quoted. To me, your view has a lot of tension because you see what happened to Eve to be a curse, Jesus redeemed us from this curse, yet we are still under that curse. Also, why hasn’t man been redeemed from any of his “curse from the fall?” That’s not fair!
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 11:34 am #
There is a fundamental difference in saying that certain cultures of people or races have passions that reflect that culture. I am not talking about women or men today or here in America or in a particular culture having these passions, I am saying that these are characteristics that transcend time and are far different than rhythm. In fact, I think it would probably be insulting to even make the comparison and misses the point entirely.
britphil on 02 May 2008 at 11:35 am #
Michael
“It does seem to me that you are presupposing too much upon me. I think many may have a mold in their mind about what a complementarian is supposed to say and do not help the issue. The same can be said about the egalitarians. Got to go, or I would say more, but read the posts here that talk about divorce and you will see where I stand on some of these issues..”
Can I just say that it is probably fortunate, or blessed even, that you had to go as the “more” that you could have said could have been pretty strongly worded…all in irenic love of course.
It is a while since I last had to cut a huuuugggeee slice of humble pie but you will be relieved to hear I am about to carve the pastry right…NOW !
But first please allow me to posit an attempt counsel for the defence/mitigating circumstances etc!!
The previous message I posted was not the one I intended to send. I realised on re-reading it (yes, it may astound you to discover that I do occasionally read my threads through before hitting the send button), that the tone sounded overly harsh and I significantly altered what I was going to say. I particularly changed the tone of the “abuse” part of my response as the original message sounded harsher than I intended and I did not intend to indicate that you were in any way legitimising domestic violence as I knew there was no way you would ever do that. I am sorry if it came across harshly but the message you received was not the one I intended to send. What actually happened, and it has happened to me on several occasions recently, is that when I hit ’send’ a me prompt appeared saying “submission failed” and what actually happened was that the first message, which I did not want to send, was posted and the revised message which I did want to send did not appear! (I can almost hear you all saying “oh yeah!!??” but it is the truth…honest!! I was appalled when I saw the thread that came up, because not only that, but it also had more than the usual proportion of typos, so much so that half of it looked as though it was written in Serbo-Croat! In fact if there are any Serbs looking in, you may wll have been able to translate it directly!
Excuses over…can I just say sorry if I appeared harsh, and thank you for directing me to your threads on divorce. Even the most cursory glance would make any idiot (especially me) realise that you have thought long and hard about this and had extensive pastoral experience and also very painful personal experiences of this issue. I also take on board your comment re generalising about what both complementarians and egalitarians believe because the reality is nearly always far less simplistic than that.
Can I just say something about the guilt that people often feel when they have left an abused marriage and have to live with the experience of a failed marriage. I strongly feel that people in this position need our love and support more than anything else. It is bad enough suffering abuse at the hands of the person you married and all the attendant emotions that brings in its wake, but it can be greatly magnified if those of us in the church suggest or imply that they should feel even more guilty becasue they have gone through a divorce process. That is a burden I do not believe God intends for anyone to carry and it is not our duty to lay it on people. If anyone feels that I am talking from a baised or loaded perspective, I have not been directly involved in an abuse situation, but I minister in an inner city area where, for an above average number of people this is a dailty reality. We have had exptensive experience of people coming to faith in Christ who have painful experience of abusive situations/relationships and failed marriages.
I also hope you don’t mind saying Michael that I was deeply moved by your incredibly gutsy and honest account of how you tried, as a young, relatively inexperienced pastor to counsel Angie in the terrible and extremely painful situation Angie found herself in. I know you are a really strong guy, but sometimes we can still feel guilty for what we feel was wrong advice/misguided advice we have sometimes given, often out of the best of motives.
I believe that it is our motives that God is most interested in and He knows that you acted out what you believed was the appropriate way to proced at the time. I don’t think there is a counsellor alive who does not looi back at some situations they have dealt with and wishes “if only I had said or advised them differently”. Admittedly, few of us end up dealing with the devastating situation you and your family had to cope with, but we have all been there, albeit to a lesser extent. Sometimes the devil knows our achilles heel and I pray that during those times you when he plays the guilt card (often one of his most subtle, yet favourite ploys) that you find strength, protection and comfort.
With regard to the rest of the post I don’t have that many more apologies to make I am afraid! Maybe it is influenced by the fact that I am a part of a mixed gender leadership team and one of the things I love about it is its feeling of complementary balance becasue of the male/female dimension of the team. We are in no way perfect (nowhere near!) and we are by no means a “mega” church but from personal experience I do like the balance of qualities and personalities. diverse leadership style etc which a male/female team set up can bring.
My!!..that large chunk of humble pie tasted really good!!!
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 11:37 am #
“This is why I have labored in such a way to present this from a different angle.”
I think your instinct was to get more GENERAL and mine was to get more SPECIFIC — as in, Do we have any empirical data about x, y or z? WHat does kephale mean? Etc.
britphil on 02 May 2008 at 12:00 pm #
“What can be worse than a church that preaches the subordination of women and does not provide a safe house for those hit on the way home from church.
I have heard too many stories, lived too long, seen too much. I am so sorry for those who still suffer in the belief that God wants this humiliation for them.”
Sue
I think this is brilliantly put. I also agree with Alyssa that every church, WITHOUT FAIL, needs as a primary objective to set up as priority to provide a services co-ordinator for abuse victims..
Many of you may not like this but we have partnered with a secular agency run by our local social services department, where we can refer onto them very quickly somebody who is in need of specialist counselling, or temporary accomodation etc not just for themself, but also for their family. I am going to say something even more extreme now…occasionally, but very rarely it can be a man who is the victim of abuse at the hands of a woman…it is very rare but it must not be totally discounted.
“Sue (and others)
“No one (here) has said women are to stay in abusive relationships. That people (and churches) have screwed things up is not a sufficient argument against scripture
A fundamental presupposition (of mine, at least) is that you can’t ignore scripture. You have to deal with what is written, and try to make sense of it as a whole.
There is too much scripture that clearly sets apart specific roles for men and women. Either you make it work in your world view, or you have to cut it out of your bible.”Q
Dac
I find this approach a bit confusing I am with you all the way on church leaders/members often screwing things up (not just on this issue, there are many others too..far too many to mention in fact…depressingly, church history appears to be full of such examples!), but when you say that it is “not a sufficent argument against scripture” I don’t know what you are saying exactly. It could be argued from Scripture, if you wanted to go down that route, that counselling someone not to stay in an abusive marital relationship is arguing against the teaching of Scripture if you go wholly down the “submission to the male” route.
Yet, in a previous statement, you stated that “no one has said that women need to stay in abusive relationships.” It may not be ’said’ but on occasions it does appear to be implied by some that this is what Scripture does teach, especially if it is accompanied by a belief that divorce is always wrong, which I have seen occasionally quoted on this site.
dac on 02 May 2008 at 12:01 pm #
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/05/01/do-husbands-submit-to-their-wives-too/#comment-48605
dac on 02 May 2008 at 12:09 pm #
BP
My point was that arguing an idea is unscriptural because people churches screw up the implementation is does not change the scripture.
Basically bad orthpraxy does not make it bad orthodoxy
britphil on 02 May 2008 at 12:17 pm #
Dac
Not meaning, or intending to bottle out on this one, but I have to go!
However, I shall return, tomorrow probably after mulling it over.
A couple of downsides to eating humble pie - one is that people will now start sending me links and threads on every subject under the sun…and two…it would be nice if the experience was a bit contagious (I’m thinking of one or two of our less than irenic posters!) ,,..or is it just an Armenian trait!!
Ah the risk-taking involved in ireny eh!
Jason J on 02 May 2008 at 12:27 pm #
This thread actually makes me laugh. When we are dealing with other aspects of theology there are very few women posting. Many of those same women are here on this thread and I commend their consistancy to actually “sit at the same table with the rest of us”.
The part that is so sad is how many ‘new’ names I see in this thread. (simply meaning names I’ve not seen on other threads recently here at P&P). Do women only come out ‘en masse’ when this topic comes up and choose to watch from the sidelines on other issues?
It’s the irony of it all that makes me laugh, not the issues. The issues are very important and I am not fully persuaded yet as to either veiw, Complementarian or Egalitarian.
My plea is that we would approach ALL matters of Scritpure with the same zeal that has been demonstrated on this topic.
Once again… just to clarify, I’m not taking a side on this issue yet because I’m not yet fully persuaded in either veiw. My leaning is complimentarian but the jury is still out and I continue to look at this issue afresh each time it arises.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 12:39 pm #
Jason,
I think it can be a bit difficult to categorize this issue because, although it isn’t a salvation issue (whith usually makes things seem less important to me, and makes me more gracious) it is vitally important. It’s understandably difficult for most men to put themselves in the shoes of someone whose sphere is being discussed (and limited by some). I am glad women feel comfortable joining the discussion about their God-given place in the world.
From The Balcony on 02 May 2008 at 12:43 pm #
Wow. Let’s admit this debate will never be settled and move on to contend for the faith. Michael, I appreciate the sensitivity you used when you wrote about this topic. I especially appreciated Ruth’s post number 12.
Funny, when I went to Africa almost 2 years ago, do you know what I saw in the church? The men weren’t present, yet God enabled gifted women to fill the rolls that men supposedly should do. The women did so intelligently, faithfully, strongly and with diligence. In Africa, if the women did not do the work, it simply would not get done. It’s not a cultural thing. It’s reality. Thus, those led by the Spirit, (now not under the law), are God’s children and heirs to His kingdom. They use the gifts God entrusted to them.
We all agree we want to be faithful to God’s Word and to obey it to the best of our ability. While I’ve wrestled with the question for years, I have finally (with the help of TTP I might add) had to honestly look at the scriptures in context, historically and biblically. There are several examples of women leaders in the Bible. How is it that we always use the specific examples to specific churches with specific problems to paint a broad picture for every church today?
I grew up complementarian but now attend an equalitarian church. I see the benefits of seeing that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female - we are all one in Christ Jesus. We are called to serve with our gifts. When we start forgetting this basic principle, it’s easy to be swayed that the argument regarding equalitarian/complementarian is really more important than it is. What really is important in the eyes of a Holy God?
Deu 10:12 Now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you except to revere him, to obey all his commandments, to love him, to serve him with all your mind and being.
I won’t be rebutting - this argument will continue till Christ returns! But let’s agree that as believers, we are all entrusted with the faith. Let’s try to keep light reins on these controversial and unresolvable topics so that the prize doesn’t get buried in the mire of discussion.
shane magee on 02 May 2008 at 1:34 pm #
seems to me that saying this issue is unresolvable so let’s live and let live would be very different were we discussing abolition for example - you are welcome to hold on to your slaves, but as for me i’ve given up the practice. it’s obviously one thing for a (even potential) slave owner to say that, a very different thing for all slaves to be forced to accept.
those with the power always ask for freedom; those with none demand regulation.
surely equality before god and before each other is the very heart of the salvation message - “there is now no longer…”
joel hunter on 02 May 2008 at 2:07 pm #
I had tried to approach this question in your earlier thread from a theological angle, but got no bites. That’s cool, I tend to write incomprehensible mush, anyway. So let me break stereotype here and be “emotional” with a more frontal assault: this post (and the previous ones) make me angry: mad, irritated, and bitchy.
You ask: “Where is the pride in being a women? Why don’t women see their value? When asked what women like most about being a woman, they gave a list that revealed their passions the way God created them. Emotions, nurturing, femininity, child bearing, compassion. Can a man do these things? Sure. But can is not the issue. The issue is are men bent to do these things?”
This concept of ‘bent’ is an assertion of essence, of nature. And that means, for the Christian, created law order. But this is all begging the question. You ask what women like about being women and from a collection of anecdotes submit that as proof that women have a “bent.” But that exercise may only be exhibiting conventional attitudes, cultural expectations and social mores. You are assuming your conclusion (that there is a universal male “bent” distinct from a female “bent”) and incorporating it into your premises. Also, the argument is a classic failure to distinguish between “is” and “ought.”
The same problem appears in your claim to say something potentially offensive to men:
“Primarily, I don’t think men are very sensitive. I don’t think men value emotion and relationships as we should. I don’t think men are always very tender. I think we have a one track mind that can be neglectful. Oftentimes, we just miss the boat. We are bent in other directions. Because of this, there are many things that I don’t think men are suited for in the same way as women. Men are not nurturers by nature.”
These are simply assertions of familiar stereotypes and prove nothing about a male “bent.” The same kind of analysis can be done with regard to race or ethnicity, and it is just as flawed.
Men have enjoyed (and as these posts show, continue to enjoy) the privilege of delineating socio-cultural roles and further securing their power in doing so. Man defines what it means to be Man and male. And in doing so, man has also defined what it means to be not-Man (= female). Thus, all women are defined (at least in part) as being not-Man. There is no possibility entertained of being-woman from the outset; there is originally only being-man. Being-woman is derivate and only emerges as the result of a negation. In such an economy of life, woman embodies the nothingness, the nullity, against which Man can assert himself as something. Meanwhile, the positive status of a woman as a full human being is left in ambiguity. All of the reassurances “Oh, but you’ve got these sweet other talents and tendencies isn’t God great to make Woman so different and mysterious and you’ll be so fulfilled if you just believe it and stop desiring power” is patronizing in its purest sense.
I believe this accurately describes the relation between Man and Woman in most of the Church. And I do not think that it is a created order AT ALL. It is a result of the curse, as are all relations of asymmetric power and privilege between humans within the created order. There can be no real submission by Woman as long as she is defined as derivative and negative. A subordinate cannot exist in a relationship of reciprocity.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 2:58 pm #
The comparison of this issue to slavery, while emotionally effective, is exegetically from different worlds. Both sides should be honest enough to admit to this.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 3:04 pm #
I find that this is what I call a “spaghetti issue.” (That’s a real, theological term….) Anyway, you get all of these things together — theology, emotion, past experience, gender studies, etc. And it’s also spaghetti-like (intertwined) in another way — there are so many more ways than two to look at it. We classify ourselves as hierarchical or nonhierarchical, or complementarian and egalitarian, but each of us may have a different way to live all of this out or a different way that we see things.
My solution that I try to use in my own life is to keep the discussion specific as much as possible — rather than lumping together “are you a hierarchical complementarian or a non-hierarchical, or an egalitarian?” I ask how life works in your house or your church. Then we get to a specific issue and we can talk about it a little bit better.
It’s difficult, too, because usually the first thing I do is try to understand the other side of the issue and their definitions — but the definitions here are exactly the issue! So I think maybe if we step back and ask ourselves more specific questions than “Are men and women different?” it might cool off the discussion a bit.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 3:06 pm #
Joel, the only thing that I would agree with is that the problem is a result of the fall. I believe that as a result of the fall, people fail to dignify roles.
I am not sure how many studies you have done on this subject, but mine is fairly humble. Having said that, what I have seen is that the characteristics of men and women are pretty much the same in all cultures of all times with regard to these general bents. When there are cultures that don’t seem to fit, one soon finds that their expressions may be different, but the bents the same. All the same, even if you did find an exception here and there, this certainly does not take away from the force of the humble argument that I am making—that men and women are essentially different and have characteristics and bents that are particular to their gender.
In fact, this is not a Christian thing, but even secular sociologists would not dare to say otherwise. Jay Leno certainly gets it!
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 3:09 pm #
Michael,
It’s still not clear to me whether or not you’re saying that leadership or authority is part of the natural gender differences or that there are ANY types of differences at all.
I totally agree that there are differences, just not on the consequences of the differences that you see.
I also think, though, that this is really getting into “folk psychology.” You can get degrees in this stuff, so I’m thinking that if we want to go there we should look at the research that’s already been done.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 3:14 pm #
One more thing for those of you who suppose to compare this with the issue of slavery—do you really want to do that? Have you study this issue critically enough to make such a comparison?
There are many great exegetes, theologians, and sociologists who have nothing to lose or gain from which position they take who would say that men and women are different with different strengths and weaknesses. They are not secretly trying to keep wives as slaves or oppress the female gender.
I will say this again to make my position as clear as I can, I think that the egalitarian position dishonors women much more than the complementarian position. Complementarians value who they are, egalitarian value who they want them to be. But this is most certainly my opinion.
C Michael Patton on 02 May 2008 at 3:23 pm #
Alyssa,
“It’s still not clear to me whether or not you’re saying that leadership or authority is part of the natural gender differences or that there are ANY types of differences at all.”
Certainly this post and the last few are set up for us being able to accept the complementarian interpretation of Scripture (although complementarians are not necessarily monolithic).
My thoughts on how egalitarians handle Scripture are somewhat reserved right now so that we can focus on what I believe to be the underlying modernistic assumptions concerning value and dignity. Only then, outside of the modern western mind set can we even begin to look at the Scripture objectively.
There is so much of the “What we are not saying” that complementarians must overcome before the environment is prepared for true exegesis.
shane magee on 02 May 2008 at 3:26 pm #
having done a little reading on this during my masters i think the comparison with slavery is a valid one - at least hermeneutically speaking (one which many feminist theologians have made over the decades). the issue is comparable because
1) we now realise that slavery is abominable.
2) there are texts in scripture which support the entire institution of slavery
3) we can either maintain literal orthodoxy (and therefore end up supporting an utterly immoral position)
4) or, we reinterpret these texts for our age.
i vote that 4 is the obvious preferable conclusion.
at issue is not whether womyn (just so as not to be forced to define the other in terms of their relationship to men) are different. obviously there are differences. the problem arises when we move from description to prescription. once we make the move from trying to describe how things are, to defining how they ought to be on gender issues, we are in the role of the imperialists, the slave owners, the powerful, the oppressors.
this is where the comparison lies - in wrestling with a venerable and ancient text in our modern context till the very word of god is revealed and encountered.
shane magee on 02 May 2008 at 3:29 pm #
o and as for scriptural support for equality and womyn in leadership roles that’s pretty easy. no time to write more now, but if you’re interested i’d appreciate any thoughts on this: http://tinyurl.com/28qcsh
joel hunter on 02 May 2008 at 3:33 pm #
Shane, penultimate paragraph (54): precisely.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 3:53 pm #
Michael,
“There is so much of the “What we are not saying” that complementarians must overcome before the environment is prepared for true exegesis.”
I’m having a hard time with this because I mostly hear what you DON’T believe, which leaves me with all these posts trying to figure out what’s going on. I know you don’t believe in abuse, I know you don’t believe in men and women being the same.
As I understand it, you believe that men should have the final say in the direction of their family and church, as they believe God is leading. Am I putting your belief out there correctly?
I feel that my belief is not put out there correctly — I’m a feminist, Christian, Bible-loving, girl who loves EVERYTHING about being a woman (not the least of which is being married to my incredible husband)! I don’t on any planet want to be a man. I don’t see how non-hierarchical complementarians devalue that by saying that it’s a valuable perspective to have in decision-making.
I’m trying not to set you or your fellow hierarchical complementarians up with something false so I can knock it down, but I’m feeling that you keep doing that with me by telling me I want to be a man.
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 4:01 pm #
I feel I need to expand.
My problem here is with moving targets. Particularly with the fact that “ontologically equal” does not mean “same” but “functionally equal” would apparently cross that line. BTW, does that mean that all men are the same?
We keep having to establish the same things over and over:
1. None of us believe in abuse (although non-hierarchicalists would say that complementarianism allows too much room for it on the outskirts by not taking enough of a stand).
2. None of us believe that men and women are the same.
So, abuse and sameness aside, the root of the disagreement is whether women should be advisors or voters in their families and at church, right?
Mitch on 02 May 2008 at 4:31 pm #
I think CMP rejected by last post, so I won’t repeat myself. But I do have this question based on how much you all have written on this: Do any of you have a job?
Michael J. Phillips on 02 May 2008 at 5:18 pm #
I think the whole section in Gen 3:14-19 is a cursing. I believe Josh was mistaken on this.
With that said, the ground is still hard, women still have hard childbirth, we still sweat in our labors, and we still return to dust upon death. Jesus did redeem us, but the actualization of this is not seen in this life. Surely you would agree all of these are still in play. So, why does the one curse, “your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you,” get redeemed? And where is the biblical support text?
Gotta go,
MJP
Alyssa B-D on 02 May 2008 at 5:18 pm #
Mitch,
I’m embarrassed to say I think and type really, really fast in the 5 minutes between classes. I’m a music teacher, so I teach all day in 30-minute increments.
My long posts are pretty much at lunch and after school.
Sue on 02 May 2008 at 6:59 pm #
CMP,
We all seem to agree that men and women are different. And we all certainly agree that abuse is wrong, although our definition of abuse may differ. For example, I can imagine that there could be times when the rock solid rule, “the wife submts more” could feel like abuse. However, we do all agree that abuse is wrong.
Now, I wonder if we can also agree that those who uphold complementarity without hierarchy derive their belief from the scripture. I do not think that we can persuade someone else to our viewpoint, but we could establish that egalitarians hold to one possible interpretation of scripture.
That is, a man could honour God be allowing his equally intelligent wife equal say in raising the children. There wouldn’t be anything wrong with that, would there?
I hope you can see that I am trying to supply, early on, the scriptures that guide me in believing that the nurturing, caring traits are either generic to men and women, or are more developed in women but equally desirable by men since Moses, Jesus and Paul all speak of this nurturing trait.
Greg on 02 May 2008 at 10:15 pm #
It seems there are a good deal of people who are offended at God for His reasons in making distinct roles for the two sexes.
The collective cry of egalitarians seems to be “hath God really said?” They approach scripture with the mindset that male leadership in church was simply a cultural phenomenon of Paul’s time, and blindly act as if their fight for egalitarianism is free of its own cultural biases.
Was there a revolution in scriptural interpretation? Were forgotten and neglected scriptures brought to light, as in Luther’s day? Or did a social and cultural revolution independent of the church occur in the last 100 years, eventually making its way into the church and informing people’s understanding of God’s word in a way foreign to it? Did the church just plain get it wrong for 1800 years?
I would like to ask this question: What caused this bent towards egalitarianism? Was it scriptural, or cultural? What is your answer?
From The Balcony on 02 May 2008 at 11:36 pm #
And I said I wouldn’t keep talking…
Michael, you said, “I think that the egalitarian position dishonors women much more than the complementarian position. Complementarians value who they are, egalitarian value who they want them to be.” (post 52)
I just can’t disagree with you more. As an egalitarian woman, I definitely value the person God created me to be - ready to use all my gifts, including leadership if called to do so. In order to do that, I have to be honest about my giftedness. How on earth could it be dishonoring to me to be an equalitarian and have the ability to use ALL of my gifts for God freely? I also value and honor a man’s giftedness to be fully used for the glory of God. I don’t think your statement is accurate at all. However, it is your opinion and I can respect that.
It’s been interesting to observe that the younger reformed group are taking a strong stand on their disagreement with equalitarianism, when in fact, if they were honest, a good strong case can be made for either position –depending on verses you choose to lift out and the context you put them in.
Egalitarianism is absolutely not dishonoring to women…..neither is a complementarian position dishonoring to women when it is respectful to women and handled by sinful and fallen men correctly. This debate will outlive us all. Let’s be careful about saying what is dishonoring and what isn’t……
minnowspeaks on 03 May 2008 at 12:53 am #
#12 Jerry B–your daughters have gotten a gift from you they may never have gotten had you not lost your wife because it would have been easier or more natural to let her do what you have stepped up to the plate to do. I am sorry for your loss and I am sure your daughters miss their mother but don’t let that discolor the very great gift YOU have given them by stretching beyond your comfort zone.
#23 dac–Could it be that you are inserting your world view into scripture…humm…
#33 Alyssa B-D–We agree on…Yes. As for disagree, I would add that we disagree on what scripture actually says regarding proper roles for women.
#43 Jason J–New names? Let’s see Sue and maybe Abigail. Then there’s Timothy, Jerry B, Jerome, Josh Parsley. At least those are the ones that are new to me. And your point was?
#47 Joel Hunter–”Patronizing in its purest sense” Thank you. I felt that but didn’t really trust myself to say it. Your other points are also very well stated!!!
CMP–HOW MANY TIMES MUST WE SAY–DIFFERENT IS NOT THE ISSUE–WE AGREE MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. The issue is what you do with the difference. Egalitarians say use it to enrich the whole. Complimentarians say use it to establish power. At least that is the message I seem to be getting.
#52–I think the slavery anology fits. I guess as for which position honors women more we must simply agree to disagree for obviously neither of us are truly willing to change. However, if I did change my point of view the walking out of my life would probably not look much different then it looks right now for I am married to a complimentarian. What about you?
#63 Greg–I do not think “a good deal of people” are offended at God so much as they simply don’t read the scripture the same way you do. It is very difficult to remain irenic when I am continually being accused of ignoring scripture, offending or being offended by God, and being told I want to be a man.
britphil on 03 May 2008 at 8:10 am #
I did mention that I would re-enter the debate after allocating it some thought.
I have been trying to ponder why it is that I am often averse to wandering what can onlytend to dexribe as Proof Text City!
It is sometimes said or implied that I don’t often quote Scripture that muc h which some find frustrating. what I find as frustrating is the impied belief that you aren’t arguing biblically without frequent references to verses of Scripture. It is perfectly possible to argue from biblical principles without overrloading it with Scripture.
I also have some difficulty with the “what Scripture says” approach. I am typing this having just retuened from a Slavery Walk around Liverpool City Centre this morning. Whta all of us have to accept here is that the wealth of a city lioke purs was built on the procedds of the slave trade.
Our guide was a brilliant guy, brough up in Liverpool butn of Ghanaian origin and at one point he made the comment that the Dutch Reformed Church justified aparthied by quoting from Scriptur, the Klu Klux Clan justified racial segregation by quoting from Scriture and some Christian slave owners and trasders justified barbaric and horrific dealing and treating of slaves directly from Scripture.
It must surely not be what does Scripture say/state/teach, but how should it be ainteroppreted and applied today.
For example, an extreme (and I accept it is extrme but not altogether uncommon) belief in the headship of the male can lead someone to not challenge a Christiamn man if he is abusing his wife (I did notice therew was much criticism of earlier aspects of my post on this thread, but little mention of whether Christian men should be challenged, and if we believe this is so, little mention of what the church shoulkd be doping not just to protect women but confront men. However, the dsame person would have to accept that Scriture says that a man should love his wife as Christ loves the church.
A teacher/theologian who focuses too much on what the Bible says without help-0imng his listeners studets to apply that teaching across a range of relevant contemoporary situations is only carring out half a job. Both are essential for people to grow into Christian maturity.
The final comment i will make is this. I have sat ujnder the ministry of women teachers anbd pastors for the last 20 years. Yes some are v”better” “more able than others but many of them I ma conveinced are anointed, empowered, equipped and greatly used by God to build his church and develop God’s people/
.
britphil on 03 May 2008 at 8:41 am #
..I give up (if only you all cry!)
The “saving comment failed” bit came up again and I couldn’t amend the typos.
Can I just also state even further in my defence that since the site was upgraded and “improved” The text runs across the screen and hides behind the margins which it did not do before! Consequently I cannot read the full text of my post until after it has been saved and then try and amend it.
britphil on 03 May 2008 at 8:55 am #
“I will say this again to make my position as clear as I can, I think that the egalitarian position dishonors women much more than the complementarian position. Complementarians value who they are, egalitarian value who they want them to be. But this is most certainly my opinion.
”
..and I will say this again as this is certainly my opinion.
How can you say that complemantarians value women more than egalitarians?
The very argument you use can be used to state the opposite. There are many, many complementarians who have treated women as they want them to be and done everything in their power to keep them there. Please do not try and sell me the “complementarian liberates, the egalitarian imprisons” slogan. Itbjust does not wash at all with me.
Did you read Joanie Ds post earlier? The stance of her husband is typical of many complemenatrians. I did not see many of your male posters including yourself rushing to encourage Joanie to in what must be a very difficult situation and which is is typrical of the stance of some complementarisans. Egalitarianism is not responsible for creating such a situation.
You criticised me earlier for generalisng yet what can be more of generlaisation than the comment yo made?
The “complementarian” position is responsible for a lack of balance in the decision making and composition of many church ministry leadership teams. What saddens me is your lack of desire to view this as a problem.
I wonder how many women have actually been involved in developing the theology of complementarianism down the years . I bet that didn’t take you too long!!?? At its worst it is a theology devised by men for the benefit of men.
And Michale I won’t be apologising this time..I feel the statement you made needs to be strongly challenged.
minnowspeaks on 03 May 2008 at 8:56 am #
#50
Let’s try this: I have a bent to lead in a way that is different from men however that does not mean that I do not have a bent to lead. CMP, you are defining everything by how it relates to men NOT by how it might relate to the whole.
minnowspeaks on 03 May 2008 at 9:00 am #
Amen Britphil!
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 9:04 am #
It’s been a long time since I’ve commented here (I’m thinking that more than a few people understand the busy-ness of working full time and going to school half=time).
britphil, I have written a post on men loving their wives as Christ loves the church (and - in the Old Covenant - God’s care for Israel.). Scriptures supporting the use of marriage as a metaphor for God (both the Father and the Son) and His people.
And verses describing that care and love.
I was told I was misusing Scripture.
Lisa R on 03 May 2008 at 10:03 am #
I told myself I was going to cease commenting because the conversation has seemed to deteriorate into a defense of personal unfairness. But I do continue to see some common fallacies that keep being repeated over and over again. So on these, I must comment.
“There are many, many complementarians who have treated women as they want them to be and done everything in their power to keep them there.”
“Did you read Joanie Ds post earlier? The stance of her husband is typical of many complemenatrians. I did not see many of your male posters including yourself rushing to encourage Joanie to in what must be a very difficult situation and which is is typrical of the stance of some complementarisans.”
What people have done should not be confused with the ideal. I think until we can rise above the abuses and distortions committed by sinful men, there can be no grounds for understanding. Also, I believe Joanie D’s husband is not a christian so would this be an unfair comparison?
“Egalitarians say use it to enrich the whole. Complimentarians say use it to establish power. At least that is the message I seem to be getting.”
The complementarian position is all about enriching the whole. The power is established through submission to Christ.
“The “complementarian” position is responsible for a lack of balance in the decision making and composition of many church ministry leadership teams.”
The complementarian position does not support women not having a say. The fact that one may not have the responsibility of authority does not debase their influence or contribution. Again, we cannot base a position on what sinful men have done with it. And how’s this for a twist. The leadership of my church very much holds to the leadership structure as I believe is clearly outlined in the pastoral epistles, a board of elders comprised of Godly men. For a good while, there was an advisory board they would consult with who was made up of older women in the church. Now my understanding is that the board no longer exists but I can tell you that the input of women in my church is valued, sought after, and considered. I appreciate my pastor and board of elders for that.
I think as long as we stay trapped in the power, inferiority, and unbalance box the real understanding of what constitutes a complementarian construct will be truly missed.
That’s my 2 cents. Signing off
C Michael Patton on 03 May 2008 at 10:08 am #
No, friends. My project thus far has been extremely humble. I seek to show that there are real and essential differences between men and women that create bents toward these differences.
Believe it or not, this is something that is not accepted by many egalitarians—not because of the abiguity of Scripture.
We need to honor these bents. Because of a dishonoring of these bents, we have this debate. This is what I believe.
Let’s take it one step at a time.
I have not read all these posts—way too many for me to keep up with. I am sorry if you are asking me something that I cannot answer.
Alyssa B-D on 03 May 2008 at 10:17 am #
Michael said,
“No, friends. My project thus far has been extremely humble. I seek to show that there are real and essential differences between men and women that create bents toward these differences.”
If what you’re trying to do is simply establish that men and women are different, mission accomplished.
Sue on 03 May 2008 at 10:18 am #
Yes, men and women are different.
To answer an earlier comment, yes, sometimes Christian men and women are abusive. We cannot just label abusive partners as non-Christian.
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 10:30 am #
Do we really think that relations are asymmetric, that the wife is not the refuge of the husband.
False dichotomy. Teaching men to love their wives as Christ loves the church should involve Scripture, should it not? What better example to use to explain the love of God for His people than Scripture?
A wife can (and should) be a refuge for her husband - that does not rule out leadership on his part.
A husband can (and should) love his wife as Christ loves the church. That does not rule out the wife being a refuge for her husband.
C Michael Patton on 03 May 2008 at 10:38 am #
Most complementarians would not suggest that women cannot lead, just that the nuance of their leadership is differently suited than that of men. For me, this is not absolute, but needs to be recognized so that each sex can be dignified for that which God has suited them.
I even lean in the direction that Paul’s statement about not allowing a women to teach is proverbial, not absolute. But, being proverbial, it still needs to be idealized.
Sue on 03 May 2008 at 10:48 am #
I want to ask about a technicality. Does a comment show up for others before the 15 minutes is up? If so, I apologize for editing out a comment. It was not intended to dishonour the dialogue.
I wrote,
Do we really think that relations are asymmetric, that the wife is not the refuge of the husband.
I want to add that I don’t think that labeling an abusive partner as non-Christian is helpful. We need to realize that Christians are broken people who need healing. A part of this healing would involve NOT teaching a controlling man that his wife must submit MORE.
I am concerned about how those who make this statement justify not addressing the difficulties of the one quarter (or so) of women who live with emotionally or physically abusive husbands.
Michael,
You wrote,
I seek to show that there are real and essential differences between men and women that create bents toward these differences.
I am unaware of any significant group of people who do not believe that there are differences between men and women. However, many people see the expression of motherliness to be linked to leadership.
For example, Catherine Booth was the mother of 8 children. She founded the Salvation Army with her husband and she preached. One of her strongest sermons was to initiate legal reforms to increase the age of consent to sexual relations. She cared for young girls out of her motherly concern. She addressed parliament out of her sense of full leadership capacity. She was angry at men who used young girls as prostitutes and she insisted on pursuing her goals for equal respect for women from the pulpit.
Alyssa B-D on 03 May 2008 at 10:51 am #
Michael,
I just went back and reread your post and I don’t think you’re taking it as “one step at a time” as you think. You’re asking us to accept, wholesale, that:
1. The Bible says uncomfortable things about women that make them feel bad or inferior. We can try to dance around them, but we shouldn’t.
2. We should recognize that men are good at some things (or have a “bent”) like leadership, but they’re not good at other things, like nurturing. — I recognize that in your last comment you say they lead differently, but in the original post, you simply list it in things a man “can” do — “They can lead…” Leadership is never referenced on the female side.
3. The debate between complementarians and egalitarians only exists because our society does not value nurturing (or not-leading) as much as leading.
Michael, don’t you see that these are a tough pill to swallow for non-hierarchal complementarians, who believe that men and women have their own strengths and weaknesses but that leadership is not one of them? Do you think it’s more irenic to approach it as something “everyone knows” and leave facts out of it? This whole thing seems so out of your character to me, so totally disrespectful to another’s position, even blind to what the opposing position really is. I can’t reconcile it with your sensitive treatment of other issues.
I keep trying to clarify where you’re coming from and it makes it so much worse. Making the map and destination for your wife? Avoiding “micromanagement” in favor of “delegating” less important decisions? Taking “responsibility” for the “final decision” about how many kids to have and how often to have sex????? (Okay, that last one was in a post you agreed with, not right from you)
Michael, I’ll say it again — Say it ain’t so! I’m so brokenhearted because I thought I had found a place where I could discuss theology as an equal (a functional equal, in your vocabulary) and I’m discovering that it’s not what I thought at all. For me, the walls are closing in on RMM….
C Michael Patton on 03 May 2008 at 11:01 am #
Alyssa, as I don’t know too much of the conversation that has gone on here, all I can say is let my words and thoughts speak for themselves one step at a time.
As for my being irenic, don’t forget the overview of the positions that I started this series with. Most would not do that.
In the end, you are going to have to let me develop my opinion and allow it to be different from yours. This is part of being able to dialogue.
I certianly would not close down the dialogue from you or other women simply because I am a complementarian. Don’t forget, I have Ruth Tucker whom I invited to be on this blog. I don’t think I can be accused of limiting the conversation or disrespect for women in any way.
I am sorry that your are beginning to feel this way.
C Michael Patton on 03 May 2008 at 11:02 am #
Sue, I think it shows up for everyone immediately.
From The Balcony on 03 May 2008 at 11:17 am #
Michael - since you haven’t had time to read most of what some of us have said, we are probably going in circles. Your latest comment…
Most complementarians would not suggest that women cannot lead, just that the nuance of their leadership is differently suited than that of men.
Then it’s not really leadership in its fullness, is it? I hope you’ll read my post 64 where I challenged one of your earlier comments about what is honoring to women….a comment that needed challenging.
I think most of us will agree that men and women are different . God did creat us differently– but men and women can be gifted with the same gifts. Why then, should women only have “certain areas” they can use their gifts in? Hmmm….let’s see, we can’t have a woman worship leader - she’s a woman and it’s a leadership role. Yet, I have no where seen that in the early church, there was even a role like the one we have created today!
Like everyone else, I do have my preferences. Even though I’m an egalitarian, I don’t “prefer” to sit under a female pastor. But I’m not going to limit God’s ability to use a woman in that role should He call her.
I’ll say it again - you can make a strong case for either position biblically. I’ve done the study myself, because I had to be sure what I believe is biblical, and I believe it is. I can also see that complementarians can make their case biblically.
So, let’s be careful about saying things like the egalitarian view is not honoring to women. That’s just not true…..and unexpected coming from you!
C Michael Patton on 03 May 2008 at 11:29 am #
Balcony,
I understand where you are coming from, but you also must understand that from my perspective, I don’t think that the egalitarian position is as honoring to women as the complementarian. I think complementarians honor the bents of the female gender and therefore foster its development while egalitarians minimally recognize this as second class gifts and therefore foster development in areas that are not naturally their bent.
This has been my point from the beginning, take it or leave it. At least I am consistant
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 11:30 am #
1. The Bible says uncomfortable things about women that make them feel bad or inferior. We can try to dance around them, but we shouldn’t.
I think that it is more like: The Bible says things about the differences between men and women - and the roles that we believe they play.
We can choose to be uncomfortable about them, and we can let them make us feel bad or inferior.
We can choose to dance around them or we can choose to embrace the differences and see both roles (as God created them) as valuable and affirming. Or we can choose not to.
Alyssa B-D on 03 May 2008 at 11:43 am #
Ellen,
I can accept that definition as where hierarchical complementarians are coming from, but can you see that there’s no way a non-hierarchical complementarian would accept that as “a first step”?
Michael said, ““No, friends. My project thus far has been extremely humble. I seek to show that there are real and essential differences between men and women that create bents toward these differences.”
The point of my post was to say it wasn’t that humble. It was part and parcel of hierarchical complementarianism, which we’ve established that we disagree on. Do you kind of see where I’m coming from? We all know how I feel about hierarchy in church, I’m not trying to prove that in this response. I’m just saying that it’s deceptive to say “my humble goal was to show that we’re different” when the real point of the post was exactly what you summarized it to be — “The Bible says things about the differences between men and women - and the roles that we believe they play.”
Alyssa B-D on 03 May 2008 at 11:51 am #
Michael,
My comment in #79 was only referencing your original post here, and then your clarification comment from the “Do husbands submit” post (including the comment you wrote to agree with one of the guys — I can’t remember which guy). Nothing from the rest of the conversation. So taking your simple words is what I’m already doing.
I do appreciate that you put the sides out there first and that was irenic of you.
I do not see your step-by-step logic, but I am trying VERY HARD to understand it.
Can you give me just the outline of your argument, like maybe with numbers so I can see it? Then I’ll try to summarize it again and make sure I understand.
At this point, I’m seeing the following line of logic:
1. The Biblical texts that reference women are agreed upon by reasonable Christians who don’t attempt to get around them. They define a role for women as functionally subordinate to men, which means that the man has the final responsibility for decision-making in the home and church.
2. We should all see that these roles make sense given that men are better at traditional leadership roles and women are better at nurturing, which is not a leadership role that’s forbidden in scripture to women.
Is that it so far?
Ellen on 03 May 2008 at 11:54 am #
“my humble goal was to show that we’re different” when the real point of the post was exactly what you summarized it to be — “The Bible says things about the differences between men and