EFBT: What Does Biblical Hierarchy in Marriage Look Like?
September 1, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
Often, when people think of the word “hierarchy,” they immediately visualize a military chain of command where one person barks out his unquestioned orders and is immediately obeyed. It's no wonder, then, that people are confused–or even angry–when complementarian Christians say they believe that a “hierarchy” wherein the husband is the leader is the right way to structure a marriage. Even worse, when those who do believe in a husband's leadership have an unbiblical idea of what hierarchy entails, the result can be misery–especially for women.
For this “Gender Friday” installment, then, I'm going to clarify what I mean by the term “hierarchy” so there's no misunderstanding about what I'm actually promoting. To begin with, instead of a military image, I would like to offer two, more appropriate models from everyday life that I think far more accurately illustrate different aspects of biblical hierarchy within a marriage. After that, I'll briefly summarize the counter-cultural, biblical context for all Christian leadership, within which a marital hierarchy must be viewed.
First, I think it's helpful to look at how hierarchy works in a healthy place of business. Most of us are familiar with the qualities of an excellent boss. He or she manages, motivates, and brings people together in a way that encourages the greatest unity, growth, creativity, productivity, and satisfaction among the employees for the good of the company as a whole. We know what it means to accept and even respect and submit to a good leader in the business arena. On the other hand, a bad boss tries to do everything himself (even if there's an employee who's more qualified), or he micromanages every detail of his employees' work, or he intimidates his employees into becoming useless yes-men.
You've most likely also seen a well-functioning hierarchy in your experiences with friends. We've all been in groups of friends where one person will emerge as the leader–not in that he gives orders to everyone or demands they pay homage to him, he just takes on the responsibility for the group. His leadership is natural, not oppressive; he doesn't call attention to his position, but simply ensures the unity of the group. He sees that decisions are made, he keeps things moving, he makes sure the others are enjoying themselves, and they look to him to resolve things. In short, he is serving them (not himself) by leading.
Grudem describes this same key idea of responsibility in his discussion of hierarchy. The husband is to take on this role of overseer for the family with the idea that the buck stops with him. Whatever decisions are made that affect the family as a whole, he bears the responsibility as the representative of the family before God. Just as the good leader of a business will empower and encourage the other employees to flourish with creativity and skill to the best of their ability (especially in the areas where they are more skilled than the leader) and yet still bear the weight of responsibility for the working body as a whole, so the husband is to do the same with the members of his family.
In addition to the idea of responsibility, no hierarchy within a marriage is biblical if the leader is not himself directed by the three central ideas of equality, self-sacrifice, and humble service.
A good leader recognizes equality within hierarchy.
As Christians, we know that we have all been created in the image of God, and so we all have intrinsic value. In the secular world, on the other hand, value comes from external characteristics, achievements, or roles. (See here for secular ethicist Peter Singer's thoughts on this.) It is not to be this way for us. The Bible is very clear that all who are fulfilling the task given to them are equal, regardless of role–not equal in terms of sameness, but in terms of honor, value, and necessity.
Paul describes this in 1 Corinthians 12:14-26:
For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you;” or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Grudem points out that our model for this view of equality within hierarchical relationships is the Trinity. There is certainly no greater example for us than this! If Christ, though He is the exact representation of the Father–equal in character, power, and glory, submits to the Father with joy, who am I to say such a thing is beneath me?
A good leader sacrifices himself.
Hierarchy within marriage must also be viewed in the context of Ephesians 5:25-30:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.
Christ gave His very life for the good of the church, and a husband is to lead with this same willingness to die–not only literally, but also figuratively every day in order to properly nourish and cherish his wife and family.
A good leader is a humble servant.
Women often reject submission because they fear the domination and oppression they're sure will come. Sometimes, of course, it does. But these things have no place in a Christian hierarchy. Jesus, who wrapped a towel around His waist and washed His disciples' feet, is our model in this, and he not only condemned oppressive leadership but went a step further, calling for leaders to lower themselves below those whom they lead in order to lift them up. See His words in Luke 22:25-27:
The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
What man would not be drawn to the chivalry of this vision of leadership I've described? And what woman would not respect such a man?
Women, men want to lead. And I've been told by some men that, even more than that, they need to lead. I think this is because they've been created to do so. Men, women fear this because we're always conscious of the fact that you are stronger than we are. You have the power to hurt us or to dismiss us as nothing. Because of this, when you do not take advantage of our weakness, but instead value us (and our contributions) as equals, sacrifice yourselves for us, and humbly kneel down so you can lift us up, you have no idea what this means to us, and there's nothing we wouldn't do to support you.
[Click on the "Gender Issues" category to see the previous posts in the Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth series.]
Related posts:
- EFBT: An Argument for Hierarchy
- Is Hierarchy Possible in a Church of Equals?
- Christ-Like Leadership And The Gender Debate
- EFBT 1: A Summary of the Complementarian Position
- EFBT 2.2: Men and Women in Ministry
- Scott Clark On Natural Law And Gay Marriage
Posted in Amy's Posts, Gender Issues, Main Page
content rss
September 1st, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Disclaimer: I'm an egalitarian
Amy, the basis of your interpretation (and perhaps Grudem's influence) is that you are discussing and defining the word hierarchy, which does not exist in the biblical texts.
Our interpreation of the text tempts us to speak of biblical hierarchy in marriage. That might be a fair interpretation, but that's what it is: an interpretation. I appreciate that you differentiate between a military and business use of the term hierarchy, but I still take issue with your use of that word.
You cite Paul's discussion of the church body as example that though certain things are more prominent they are no less important. That set of scripture and that analogy is not used in regards to marriage. It is used in regards to the church body.
Third, you also define what a “good leader” is based on several different texts. I agree with those definitions, but i find them weak for this reason: Those definitions are often times used to defend against the accusation that your theological bent keeps women down.
Women, men want to lead. And I've been told by some men that, even more than that, they need to lead. I think this is because they've been created to do so.
This is quite the bold statement. I know plenty women who want to lead and (judging by your writings, you may be one of those women). And I'm not sure that as a man, I'm automatically created to lead.
September 1st, 2006 at 9:37 pm
EE, you're an egalitarian?!
One part of your comment stuck out. When you said, “And I'm not sure that as a man, I'm automatically created to lead.” When I think of this issue I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis' words on the subject when he asks 2 questions: “(1) Why should there be a head at all — why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man.” The answer he gives is I think, in very typical Lewisian fashion, very poigniant: “(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent… (2)… Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say 'Pool Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' I do not think she is even very falttered if anyone mentions the fact of her own 'headship.'”
I think that Amy was very correct, there is something within most men that pusshes them to lead and within most women that pushes them to want men to lead. Why is why your statement would make you the exception and not the rule.
September 2nd, 2006 at 2:17 am
Chuck,
1. you're speaking into my situation through your lens… Not a biblical lens, but your personal lens.
2. Headship is another word that is quite controversial in that it speaks and interprets things from scripture, but it is not a scriptural word per se.
3. I'm not sure where you're going from the Lewis quote.
4. Regardless of what you think women desire or do not desire does not necessarily make them biblical
5. The desire for men to lead and women to want to be lead as you state could be intrepreted as a God-given right (your interpretation) or as part of the curse.
6. I really don't care whether my statement makes me the exception or the rule. The point is not whether I'm right or wrong in all this or whether my point of view is popular or not.
7. Supposing for a moment that your Lewis quote is not taken out of context, it means absolutely nothing what he says because it sounds totally absurd. Is there any logic to the statement that the permanence of marriage implicates the need for a head?
September 2nd, 2006 at 2:50 am
EE, thanks for taking the time to read the post.
Amy, the basis of your interpretation (and perhaps Grudem's influence) is that you are discussing and defining the word hierarchy, which does not exist in the biblical texts.
Whether or not the specific word appears in the text is irrelevant. The concept of leadership (where one person oversees others) is discussed quite a bit, as I explained. I used the term to refer to this concept last week, and I was asked to explain in more detail what I meant by the word.
Our interpreation of the text tempts us to speak of biblical hierarchy in marriage. That might be a fair interpretation, but that's what it is: an interpretation. I appreciate that you differentiate between a military and business use of the term hierarchy, but I still take issue with your use of that word.
The phrase “Wives, submit to your husbands…husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them,” though it doesn't use the word “hierarchy,” does seem, in the most straightforward reading, to create the hierarchy I was describing (where the husband is the leader but is warned against misusing his leadership).
Look, I know this is a difficult subject. We've been trained in our culture to think that submission is a bad thing–at least, we consider it a bad thing in marriage. We accept it readily in many other areas. I know men can use their power to hurt women. I've seen it. Believe me, we understand our vulnerability. (That's why we'd better choose our husbands carefully!) This is an emotional subject, and it took me a while to work through the beauty of it because at first I saw it only in terms of being told what I can't do. I really don't look at it this way anymore, so I encourage you to continue to read the series. If nothing else, you may at least see the subject from a different angle, and hear about how and why my perspective changed.
I do appreciate your concern for women, believe me! When people cavalierly go about promoting submission without expressing sensitivity to the fears of women by defining biblical leadership, it does bother me. That's exactly why I wrote this post.
But here's my hypothetical question: if the Bible could be shown to be asking husbands to lead, should we take it upon ourselves to do something different if we believe that another way might cause less sin and have better results?
You cite Paul's discussion of the church body as example that though certain things are more prominent they are no less important. That set of scripture and that analogy is not used in regards to marriage. It is used in regards to the church body.
It's used to describe how people working together as one all have their parts to play, and all the parts are valuable. I'm showing the principle that the role of the eye is valuable and necessary, but so is the role of the hand or the foot. In other words, God values all roles that are required for a healthy body. Why wouldn't that apply to the body of the family? Suddenly, in a family, only one role is valuable and necessary? That doesn't seem reasonable.
Third, you also define what a “good leader” is based on several different texts. I agree with those definitions, but i find them weak for this reason: Those definitions are often times used to defend against the accusation that your theological bent keeps women down.
At the very beginning of the post, I said that there's a danger that people who believe in a husband's leadership would not understand how the Bible exhorts leaders to behave. I fully acknowledge that. The purpose of this post is to prevent the misuse of leadership by presenting the full context of leadership as shown in the Bible. Do you think that if a man viewed leadership of the home in this way that would keep his wife down? How? If someone chooses to ignore the biblical directions for leadership, that's not the fault of the theology! It's not the theology that's keeping women down. It's a distortion of theology (i.e., a sinful ignoring of the definition of leadership on the part of some men) that keeps women down.
If you're saying that women are “being kept down” by supporting their husband's leadership, then you must also be prepared to say that Jesus is “being kept down” by the Father.
And I'm not sure that as a man, I'm automatically created to lead.
I've been watching men and women carefully the last 10 years, trying to understand who we are and why we do the things we do. I've spent a lot of time asking questions, observing, and thinking. Because I looked at the way things actually are instead of how I wanted them to be (or how the culture taught me I should want them to be), my views have changed dramatically. I do think that there are many differences between men and women. We both have our strengths and weaknesses.
If you found that men and women were different, would you be open to the possibility that men have certain strengths that would increase the effectiveness of their leadership and women have certain strengths that would decrease the effectiveness of their leadership?
September 2nd, 2006 at 7:47 am
EE, 1. Actually I think I am speaking through a Biblical lens 2. Headship is most certainly a Biblical idea, in fact the word “head” is actually the very word used (c.f. Ephesians 5:23, where our headship of our wife is compared to Christ's headship of the church. 3. Well where I was going with the Lewis quote was to show that I think there is an innate quality in men and women to fulfill the roles which God has given them, and though a culture may look down on them they still can't shake the feeling that it's the better way (which is why if you can you would be the exception and not the rule, this also answers #4) 5. I don't think that it's part of the curse because Paul in 1 Timothy 2 uses the reason that “Adam was created first, then Eve” (creation, of course, happened before the fall, I also feel the best reading of this text would be “husband” and “wife” not “man” and “woman” since the Greek words are the same and the “husband,wife” translation would seem to fit the context better, thoughts anyone?). 6. I agree, the point is whether you're wrong or not and I think what I meant by calling you the exception was to say that I thought you were wrong. 7. The quote is not taken out of context, you may read it in Mere Christianity in the chapter entitled “Christian Marriage”, and yes there is a great deal of logic to the statement. If an institution is permanent then it will very necessarily need a leader, now if both parties agree then there is no reason for a leader, but if one disagrees with the other then there must be a leader (as 2 people cannot have a majority vote). I've tried to do it justice here very quickly, but read it, I think it's a great argument.
By the way, I may also turn your statement around on you, and say simply because as a man you don't feel the need to lead doesn't mean that that is biblical.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I've been watching men and women carefully the last 10 years, trying to understand who we are and why we do the things we do. I've spent a lot of time asking questions, observing, and thinking. Because I looked at the way things actually are instead of how I wanted them to be (or how the culture taught me I should want them to be), my views have changed dramatically. I do think that there are many differences between men and women. We both have our strengths and weaknesses. If you found that men and women were different, would you be open to the possibility that men have certain strengths that would increase the effectiveness of their leadership and women have certain strengths that would decrease the effectiveness of their leadership?
Your observations are anecdotal. My conclusion is that complementarianism is actually a blend of improper theology propped up by biased anecdotal opinion and sloppy fact gathering. Complementarians are busily verbal people as a rule, so all of their writings compile into what looks like a solid argument for their viewpoint.
I could just as easily say that women are uniquely gifted with the clarity of purpose and organizational briskness that makes them better leaders than men. However, I do not believe that.
The reality is that people with leadership ability emerge from both genders, all ethnicities and a variety of personality types. If you look at various leaders, they have an astonishing degree of personal diversity.
People always seek to understand situations logically. Complementarians are fixated on headship, control and power, and they struggle to reconcile the nature of women to the place they want them to occupy in the hierarchical structure that they consider the only righteous way of viewing the world.
As a result, women are informed of their “need” to be led and men are informed of the “need” to lead. Women are given an attendant set of attributes–the ones that a truly “feminine” woman will have, and they are told that any non-conformity is an abberation from their “true” nature.
As I have said before, I am willing to make a bargain with complementarians that they can have men in every lead pastor position in America, if women can have back their full complement of human traits in return.
September 4th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Complementarians are fixated on headship, control and power, and they struggle to reconcile the nature of women to the place they want them to occupy in the hierarchical structure that they consider the only righteous way of viewing the world.
I don't think this is doing justice to the things Amy wrote. This is exactly why she wrote on hierarchy, and yet you chose to use the word in its most extreme 'military' form. And this is not at all what I understand Amy's view to be! And she did a great job explaining why.
All you do in this post is express your own opinion/conclusion without coming up with any verifiable facts or a proper exegesis of any passage of Scripture or a response to Amy's reply.
The differences between men and women are (in general) quite obvious. There is a huge amount of books out there on these differences, also from quite 'modern' emancipated people who might even consider themselves feminist. It's just that some people fail to see that these differences have consequences for the roles that men and women play.
I don't mean to be all smart, and please tell me if I'm wrong, but this whole post sounds to me as if you've been in painful situations where women indeed were suppressed/kept quiet etc. Something that is not just wrong from a civilized point of view, but is also utterly UNbiblical, i think we all agree.
I'll happily admit that my view has been shaped by positive experiences of marriages and churches functioning with a biblical mode of hierarchy (that mode that Amy described so well, thanks for that!)… for as far as we should take experiences as authoritative.
To complete our beloved quadrilateral
, i think church history DOES teach us that this is a subject that we should deal with with extreme care. Always be accountable to other people, always on our guard for the deceitfulness of our hearts. Just that a doctrine is difficult to be practiced and things have often gone wrong doesn't mean the end of the doctrine though.
September 4th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
There is a huge amount of books out there on these differences, also from quite 'modern' emancipated people who might even consider themselves feminist. It's just that some people fail to see that these differences have consequences for the roles that men and women play
I don't really need to read a scientific or theological treatise on women. I'm a woman, and therefore I get automatic points as an expert on being a woman. We have created a society in which no one but a narrow subset of experts can so much as tell us how many hours of sleep we should be getting or whether we should eat one egg per day, or two. Into this already abnormal environment, we have theologians who stray way out of bounds and tell women what they're like without ever troubling to consult the women themselves. Therefore, I'm not allowed to have an opinion about myself unless it concurs with the MRI brain scans of women in some scientific study. Personally, I'm not willing to play under the constraint of those rules.
As for male-female differences leading to differentiated roles, that is a matter of interpretation and rampant generalization. 20% of women are freaks who share similar brain patterns to men. Some percentage of men are freaks who “think” like women. Humans are diverse, and difficult to package. Forcing people into gender-specific roles, outside of some very obvious things such as bearing children, breastfeeding and certain activities that men can do because of their heavier musculature, is an exercise in coercion because it fails to recognize that one cannot easily catagorize people.
I don't mean to be all smart, and please tell me if I'm wrong, but this whole post sounds to me as if you've been in painful situations where women indeed were suppressed/kept quiet etc. Something that is not just wrong from a civilized point of view, but is also utterly UNbiblical, i think we all agree.
No. I haven't been suppressed. I'm simply aware that my legal and societal equality here in America is an extraordinarily unusual circumstance. I can't afford to just sit around, or I'll lose it.
Patriarchy is the norm in history. Patriarchy, by Christians or otherwise, has NEVER resulted in a situation in which women have equal intellectual freedom or a status of equal respect in any society. Complementarians behave as if they are going to fix this problem and make patriarchy good for women. This is a blindness of the pitfalls of power. Male dominance is a problem for women because men are sinful and the most dangerous thing for almost any sinner is to be told that one is naturally entitled to power over some group of people. That's why we only elect presidents for a limit of eight years in this country. Otherwise, we end up with Kim Jong-Il.
Just that a doctrine is difficult to be practiced and things have often gone wrong doesn't mean the end of the doctrine though
Why is such a huge degree of attention being devoted to complementarianism right now? Did you know that Baptist missionaries who devoted themselves to sharing Jesus with the world were severed from their denomination for refusing to agree to Danversism?
It's such a strange, divisive issue, with the unusual purpose of limiting willing Christians from what they can do in churches.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:39 am
No. I haven't been suppressed. I'm simply aware that my legal and societal equality here in America is an extraordinarily unusual circumstance. I can't afford to just sit around, or I'll lose it. Patriarchy is the norm in history. Patriarchy, by Christians or otherwise, has NEVER resulted in a situation in which women have equal intellectual freedom or a status of equal respect in any society.
It's all about what you understand to be intellectual freedom and equal respect. Indeed, in my 'circles' women don't get to stand up front as much as men do, but I do see tremendous respect for the point of view women bring either when they're 'on stage' or in a more informal way. So i wouldn't say NEVER.
The 20% you spoke about (a completely random percentage i suppose) is I think very much a result of a distorted/worldly view on gender issues. That's why I'm curious to know how you deal with Pauline scriptures on this issue.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
A lot of the above discussion is theoretical in context, but I can't help but think of it in more practical terms. Because of the arrangment my husband and I have, where he works and I stay home with the kids, he does bear the greater share of responsibility and decision-making when it comes to work and many financial decisions. However, when we make decisions that involve the children, my vote tends to weigh heavier because I understand their needs better, and because anything that affects them affects my daily life more than my husband's.
The examples would be endless…my point is that our lives do not seem to match up with what I took to be one of Amy's main theses: “Whatever decisions are made that affect the family as a whole, he bears the responsibility.”
I'm not necessarily against the concept of husband-leadership, but I still can't wrap my head around what it really means. Is my husband like a great boss who assigns roles and encourages excellent work and rewards handsomely? No. Not at all. Is my husband like a dynamic leader in a group of friends who plans activities and keeps everyone happy? No. Not at all.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic; it's an interesting subject; I'm just not understanding what it's supposed to mean in an actual marriage.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:30 am
i have been using the word “hierarchical modularity” [reference to Barabasi's "Linked"] to describe the kind of dynamic hierachy found in the Trinity, church organization, etc . . and it kinda fits with this also.
September 6th, 2006 at 5:44 am
The examples would be endless…my point is that our lives do not seem to match up with what I took to be one of Amy's main theses: “Whatever decisions are made that affect the family as a whole, he bears the responsibility.”
Ultimately, the husband has the greater accountability overall due to his place of headship (Eph. 5:23), but it no way does that mean the wife has no accountability either. God has ordained an order apart from the giftedness of the individuals involved.
So, even if the husband is the dolt (yeah, you know who you are out there!) and the wife completely has her act together, it is sin for the wife to usurp the role of head of the household. It is subversion of God's ordained order to do so.
Of course, one then starts to question the wisdom of keeping this order in light of the problems the family will face with a crackpot at the steering wheel. God made woman a suitable helper (Genesis 2:18). It is an ordained order which, I would argue, would be a sin for the husband to prevent her from fulfilling her role.
As head of the family, the husband makes the final decisions, but not without help. (Frankly, if the husband doesn't see his wife as his God-ordained help, then she is something else to him. That's not a good thing.) In your case where you have more involvement with the children, though he should make the final decision, he would be exercising good headship by depending upon your strengths.
As for the crackpot dolt, if he were to lead his wife and family into sin, the wife has a greater authority to obey, and that is Christ. The wife still has to fulfill her role has the husband's help, but not to help him sin. In cases where the husband continues to head down the path of sin and destruction unrepentantly, the husband is rejecting his role has the head and is deserving to be cut off (aka divorced). The same can be said if the wife helps to bring sin unrepentantly, she is deserving to be cut off. In either case, the authority of Christ is to rule in the hearts of both the husband and the wife so that they may fulfill their very roles.
So, though your husband may not be the encouraging, rewarding, dynamic leader, he is, by God's decree, the head of your household. His responsibility goes beyond his work and financial decisions. He must make decisions in areas where he isn't involved as greatly, which is where you come in, the God-ordained helpmate. Together, as one, you both are responsible to raise a Christian family. But just as Adam had the greater responsibility for the Fall of the human race, so does the husband have the greater responsbility over the family.
In Christ,
Victor
September 7th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Simple question: How does one establish a gender role system from a passage that is clearly referring to marital roles?
The post begins by discussing wives and husbands, but by the conclusion has broadened its scope to apply to women and men generally.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Good to hear from you again Andrew! I have no idea what you just said
Would you mind explaining?
September 11th, 2006 at 1:48 am
Anon (who won't at least give a name, even pseudo, to help set her apart from the plethora of Anon's on this blog) so far has not provided any Scriptural evidence for her position (assuming that it is egalitarian since she has shown contempt for the complementarian position). Instead, she provides a negative apologetic based solely on her pragmatism. Fine and dandy if she wants to argue against a humanist, but we're talking about a Scriptural basis for the complementarian position, not some derived concept based on empiricism.
But it's obvious that Scripture is not going to have authority over her.
I don't really need to read a scientific or theological treatise on women. I'm a woman, and therefore I get automatic points as an expert on being a woman. (emphasis mine)
I, nor any complementarian that I know of, would ever discount the experiences of a woman. A woman knows more about being a woman than a man would. That's a given. But compared to her Maker, she an amateur.
Into this already abnormal environment, we have theologians who stray way out of bounds and tell women what they're like without ever troubling to consult the women themselves.
So in order to get the correct hermeneutic about women, women need to be consulted? This is to subject the Word of God under her own subjective point of view. She might as well have said that God needs to be counseled by women about women.
And then she follows with this “therefore”:
Therefore, I'm not allowed to have an opinion about myself unless it concurs with the MRI brain scans of women in some scientific study.
How she makes this a logical conclusion of her previous statement, I just don't get. She can have whatever opinion she may have about herself despite the scientific studies, but she cannot place her opinion over the authority of Scripture.
As for male-female differences leading to differentiated roles, that is a matter of interpretation and rampant generalization.
Ah yes, I've seen that argument before. “Matter of interpretation” indeed. Of course, she's never provided her interpretation, but maybe because she realizes that the same argument could be used against her position. Interpretation is the crux of the problem between the 2 views. So, unless she can provide one that can be put under scrutiny, she has no case other than “I don't like it.”
Humans are diverse, and difficult to package. Forcing people into gender-specific roles, outside of some very obvious things such as bearing children, breastfeeding and certain activities that men can do because of their heavier musculature, is an exercise in coercion because it fails to recognize that one cannot easily catagorize people.
She still argues based on a humanistic premise. Surely, if that was all there is to base gender-specific roles, then she's got a reason. But in Scriptural terms, it's clear to God for what purpose and role a man and a woman plays. To not follow under the authority of Scripture is subversion of order.
Patriarchy, by Christians or otherwise, has NEVER resulted in a situation in which women have equal intellectual freedom or a status of equal respect in any society.
I wonder if she even realizes the implication of her own words. Christianity is a patriarchy on the highest level since God has revealed Himself as our Father. Is she now going to denounce the faith because the faith is a patriarchy? If Christian Patriarchy failed to give women “equal intellectual freedom or a status of equal respect in any society,” it is because the people failed, not because the theology failed.
Complementarians behave as if they are going to fix this problem and make patriarchy good for women. This is a blindness of the pitfalls of power.
She, of course, is generalizing complementarians as powermongers, to which she only asserts without substantiation. It doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who are using the complementarian view to gain power for sinful means, but that isn't an argument against the complementarian position. It's just a sweeping generalization.
Male dominance is a problem for women because men are sinful and the most dangerous thing for almost any sinner is to be told that one is naturally entitled to power over some group of people.
Fire all teachers. After all, their position as a teacher naturally entitles them to have power over a group of people. If they didn't, they wouldn't be much of a teacher.
Better yet, have parents give up their children every 2 to 4 years in exchange for other children. After all, their position as a parent naturally entitles them to have power over their children.
Just because men are sinful doesn't negate their role as God has defined. If sin negated roles, then it's time to exchange children. But what the headship role of men does do is make them far more accountable to God. But I have a suspicion that it just isn't enough for Anon. She'd rather not have any patriarchy (male dominance, to make it sound more sinister), which only serves to make men more accountable for reliquenshing their role. Way to bring down the hatchet.
Why is such a huge degree of attention being devoted to complementarianism right now? Did you know that Baptist missionaries who devoted themselves to sharing Jesus with the world were severed from their denomination for refusing to agree to Danversism? It's such a strange, divisive issue, with the unusual purpose of limiting willing Christians from what they can do in churches.
I've heard that before. “It's divisive.” “It limits Christians.” Good doctrine will always be divisive against bad doctrine, or did she forget how sinful we are? And limitation as defined by Scripture is always a good thing, over and against unbiblical pragmatic solutions.