This position does not seek to deny "equality" between the sexes. On the contrary, it positively affirms that men and women are...
- equally bearers of the image of God
- equal in value or worth
- equal in dignity
- equal in moral responsibility
- equal in salvation (the same "way in" for all)
- equal as recipients of the gift of the Spirit
- (and I would add as a charismatic) equal as recipients of the gifts of the Spirit
However, complementarians also believe that there are differences between male and female, and that these differences are good. They come from God's creative intention. Rather than competing with one another, men and women actually complement one another. One of the ways that complementarians see these differences outworking is in leadership of the local church, specifically the eldership. They believe the New Testament teaches that men are to be called as elders in the church, to serve by exercising authority and taking responsibility for the care and spiritual well-being of those in the congregation.
But this position leaves him labeled sexist and it bothers him especially in light of the culture that he often finds himself. Ironic.
Technorati Tags: women
7 comments:
What about deacons?
Anyone who says there aren't differences between men and women are joking themselves. Take away the fig leaves and anyone with two functioning eyes can see that.
Again, I see how my wife is a compliment to me. But, of course, I am also a compliment to her. We just don't compliment each other in the *traditional* ways.
I am a stay-at-home dad. She is a military officer. I get all emotional. She thinks I'm over-sensitive.
But we compliment each other and help each other out. Friends as well as spouses do this.
Might I heretically offer that perhaps the New Testament, if the way complementarians understand it is correct, is *wrong* on this issue?
I'm not sure I understand d's point. I understand (I think) the position that men and women in Christ are not identical in all ways. I don't understand the conclusion that the NT is wrong in the way complementarians understand it.
Is the point that complementarians don't understand the NT teaching? Or is the NT in this case wrong on the facts and modern research shows what's true? (I'm asking, not just trying to poison the well.)
Hi Rick, thanks for the link ;)
On the subject of deacons, there is mixed opinion amongst complementarians. In my church, women serve in a wide variety of ways including youth leading, worship leading, and cell group leading. There are many outstanding ministries going on that have been pioneered by women.
As for d's comment - don't be so quick to assume that the gender stereotypes you react against actually come from the New Testament. In 1 Peter 3:6,7 a supposedly sexist passage, Peter tells women to be courageous and men to be gentle. He clearly does not see these characteristics as being suitable for just one sex.
Actually, I think some of the stereotypes we have of the genders are found in the New Testament, precisely because I think many of our stereotypes descend from our religious tradition.
I would argue that the command that elders be male and that they should be able to "manage" their family implies patriarchy and the view of women and children as not only below him but also as extension of him. One doesn't manage equals. One manages servants and underlings.
I'll finish this thought later. My kid just woke up from his nap.
We are probably not talking about the same things, but I'll try, D.
Are you saying that the NT is incorrect, and we have more knowlege about what is true apart from the NT, or that the NT is correct, but we bring our biases into it when we read? Either could be your point (or something else, too.)
I just want to understand.
BTW, w/r/t your kid and the nap - surely you note that the parents' roles in child-bearing are complementary, not identical! ;)
i'm quite happy that the child-bearing role isn't mine, to be honest. However, once the baby is birthed things do get more complicated. Say the mother's milk supply doesn't come in or its painful to nurse and the dad takes over as the primary feeder with a bottle and formula. We we are talking about complementarianism it just seems we are talking about our plumbing somehow dictating what we can and can't do on a much more than a practical level of giving birth.
My point is what makes a man a man and a woman a woman? And what is it about those differences that divides certain tasks among us? I'm just not sure one follows the other. If the argument is, well, because the Bible said so and that settles it and it's God's ineffable plan, then I'd say we're probably not going to have much of a conversation. :)
If men are by God's design to be leaders of the church, what is the difference between them and women that qualifies them? And what is it that women, by God's design do better than men (aside from childbirth)? To connect the two, implies that it is the natural, logical way for things to work. So I ask, what makes male church leadership natural and women leadership unnatural?
I think my point about complentarianism is that being a complement to someone has nothing to do with one's gender. My best friends (guys) are complements to me. Those who I've surround myself to are complements.
But, to your question, I am actually saying it could be either or both things. I certainly think we have a better understanding of the sexes today than the first-century writers did, particularly since during that era, women were little more than property, and I would argue that they were influenced by that culture. Yes, I believe patriarchy to be a sin, just as I believe slavery to be a sin. Yes, I think our forefathers of faith were in the wrong. I also think it would have been difficult for them to conceive of the issue any differently because they were locked in that culture.
And yes, we bring our biases to reading the NT. I will read what I want to see there, just as others do. But of course, this leads done a whole different discussion.
Post a Comment