This blog post is worth reading. The author outlines many teachings that demonstrate plain sense readings of scripture that evangelicals do not practice. The basic premise is that Christians are not complementarians primarily because of the plain sense teaching of scripture. I would agree with this. There are other reasons.
This author suggests 1) personal comfort level 2) compatibility with scripture and 3) the church one goes to teaches it. Clearly none of these things differentiate complementarianism from slavery in the 1800's. I cannot think that any of these mitigate what is otherwise something we hold to be wrong.
Here are some of my observations, after attending a wide range of churches over the years. But first, let me define complementarianism for the purposed of this blog. It is simply that men and women have different roles in this unique sense, that women are to submit and men are to have authority. I reference this article.
I agree that complementarianism is not about following the plain sense of scripture. My earliest experience of male only authority was in the Brethren who adhered to this one rule pertaining to women, that they must be "silent in the assembly." Women could not lead the singing, sing solos, pray or make announcements. Their voices could not be heard except in the context of congregational singing. This was the practice of the "plain sense" of scripture. I do not see complementarians follow this practice. In my view complementarianism is not about the practice of some perceived plain sense of scripture.
I do not accept general comfort level as a proper measure of spiritual practice. There are many cults and groups which coerce and lead people into a strongly counter cultural lifestyle. We are battling a community which practices polygamy here in our province. That people practice something, does not make it right.
General compatibility with scripture is the second guideline. This is also difficult. I was raised to believe that a monarchy, suppression of unions in the workplace, racial segregation and the silence of women were all compatible with scripture. These were strongly held beliefs. The silence of women in the assembly is most certainly compatible with scripture. For some women, this has meant differential access to education and the workplace, also compatible with scripture. In fact, there is very little that one can say is not compatible with scripture, when it comes to keeping women in their place. Denial of the right to remarry after divorce is compatible with scripture. Even if the spouse abandoned the other partner.
No, I cannot accept compatibility with scripture. This leads back to slavery and silence, servitude and deprivation on the basis of class and gender. I have lived this life. I will not condone this kind of treatment for other people.
The third factor is that "the church one goes to teaches it." I think we can see that cults of every kind nurture people in a thousand ways. This is what this blog is about. It is about gaining some ability to think clearly about what is right and what is wrong regardless of how "nurturing" the community appears to be.
Holding women in permanent and pervasive submission to the supposed "God-assigned" authority of sinful men over women is simply wrong. Who will blot out the stain of male dominance? Only a God that demonstrates the derobing of power. May we all learn from this.
Male dominance is at odds with the core teaching of the gospel, that saving goodness is the putting off of privilege and the taking on a care.
Take time to comment on this post if you can and share your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The basic premise is that Christians are not complementarians primarily because of the plain sense teaching of scripture. I would agree with this. There are other reasons.
I suspect that John is right, but the point I want to make in my post to which John was responding is that the complementarians I have known consider the "plain sense" of Scripture to be their strongest argument for complementarianism. In actual fact, they may promote other arguments higher, such as those John has mentioned. But the only preaching I have heard from complementarians is that we should believe in a complementarian hierarchy of roles because they believe that that is what the plain sense of Scripture teaches.
Wayne,
There is a difference between motivation and justification. I believe that you highlight justification.
Motivation is more likely,
- comfort with what we know, as John says
- reluctance to give up entitlement
- justification for how one has already lived one's life so far
- desire to have one fixed rule of life
I agree, Wayne, that you express one perspective on this very complex issue. John presents a different perspective. They are both valid opinions and do not conflict in my view.
suzanne--
i think your distinctions between motivation and justification are at the root of this complementarian issue. they are often presented as the same thing when in deed they are not. when they are congruent, or close to it, the idea expressed is highest in integrity, i think. when they are far apart, the idea is what harry frankfurt would call 'bullshit.' seems most applicable to theology and politics, this deliberate discontinuity between motivation and justification.
peace--
scott
But the only preaching I have heard from complementarians is that we should believe in a complementarian hierarchy of roles because they believe that that is what the plain sense of Scripture teaches.
11:06 PM
But this can only be done by ignoring other contradictory scriptures to that view. Perhaps it is not so much a plain sense reading as it is 'selective' reading.
I still cannot understand the 'plain' sense of scripture in reading that a woman is saved through childbearing. A 'plain' sense reading of this verse would negate Salvation though Faith alone. Then we are told that childbearing is related to our 'roles' and sanctification. Which of course, again ignores many other scriptures.
Post a Comment