Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Subservient to men

Sometimes people wonder when a woman bristles. But it is clear that some complementarians do think that women are to be subservient. At Parchment and Pen, Michael, (I assume it is the blog author who wrote this) writes,
Egalitarianism: Theological position held by many Christians (contra complementarianism) believing the Bible does not teach that women are in any sense, functionally or ontologically, subservient to men. Women and men hold positions in society, ministry, and the family according to their gifts, not their gender. The principle of mutual submission teaches that husbands and wives are to submit to each other equally. Prominent egalitarians include Doug Groothuis, Ruth Tucker, William Webb, Gorden Fee, and Linda Belleville.
Imagine that! Terrible, isn't it to think that some Christians do not think of women as subservient to men. Shocking.

But men who write things like this are still treated as great buddies by many egalitarian men.


Kristen said...

Subservient. . . but equal. The subservient roles are just different, not lesser. . .


Donald Johnson said...

I think MP has been blinded in this area, thanks for pointing it out. I am praying that the blue lenses he wears will come off and he will see clearly.

Anonymous said...

Well, that must have been a slip. The definition of complementarianism certainly does not include the word "subservient".

This is straight from the Theological Word of the Day site:

Theological position held by many Christians (contra egalitarianism) believing the Bible teaches that men and women are of equal worth, dignity, and responsibility before God (ontological equality), but that men and women have different roles to play in society, the family, and the church (relational distinct roles).

My, my - playing roles sounds quite a bit different than subservient, doesn't it? Much more appealing.


Kristen said...

But all the roles the women get are subservient ones.

As Buttercup said in The Princess Bride, "We sort of skipped that part. . ."

Theophrastus said...

Plus the author misspelled Gordon's first name. And he included a bad link to his definition of "complementarianism."

Maybe the egalitarians who are great buddies with these folks don't know how to spell and thought they were talking to complimentarians instead of complementarians.

Rod said...

Shocking to know there are some people out there who believe women are human. The audacity!

Suzanne McCarthy said...

And thanks to all you sweet guys for reminding me that men are human also.

Muff Potter said...

Suzanne, I am not known for being particularly dense, but like they say, there's always a first.

The snippet you posted is as clinically neutral as the zero point on a standard number line. Neither positive or negative in its brief description of egalitarianism.

I'm not sure what you mean by egalitarian men who toady up to?
What? Can you elucidate more?

Anonymous said...

The truth is there are no REAL believers who think there are other believers who are subservient to them.

Because a true believer does not think that way. They put others before themselves.

Theophrastus said...

From the police blotter

Theophrastus said...

It is amazing how little has changed since 1558.