 |
| Discovered this image at Critical Discipleship who blogged a great post about complementarianism. |
I wrote a post a long while back titled Complementarianism Sucks: Telling Women to be Quiet in the Name of Jesus.
It's a collection of excerpts from other bloggers about the subjugation of women in the modern Christian church as I was participating in a synchroblog, which is when a bunch of bloggers all blog on the same topic.
Every now and then a reader will stumble through my blog and leave a comment on this post, reminding me that the issue of women and men and equality is alive and well lest I forget. Here's what the reader said, and note, they remained anonymous so I do not know if they are male or female:
You can't POSSIBLY argue against a Biblically supported philosophy without using the Bible in any way, provided that you believe the Bible is true.This, my blog readership friends, is why I'm writing a book that confronts gender inequity in the modern world of Church.
Look at your post, Pam. Everything you say is like "I like", "I heard", "I saw", "I listened", "I know", etc.!
You need to be reminded that this world isn't about you and what goes on in your mind. This about God and what he wants, and if he were to demand that there be a separate, lower section of seats in the church for women to sit in, then as a believer in God you better sit there! Now obviously I'm using a more extreme case of "sexism" or whatever you would call it to illustrate my point, but at least you understand it.
If you disagree with that argument then you are disagreeing with God, because whatever God asks of you, you need to do.
It's a simple fact that Eve took the fruit and ate it before giving it to Adam and convincing him to eat it as well. So you tell me, why do you think God doesn't want women to lead the church? (bold my emphasis)
So thank you Anonymous for stoking my writing fires to light up the pages with prophetic heralding announcing that complementarianism does indeed suck and that Christ came to liberate all....need a bible verse for that? How about Gal 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
19 comments:
I think there's only ONE thing that takes me from "0" to "conversation permanently over" in 6 seconds: when they say, "but God says so! You follow God, right?"
They could be Christians quoting scripture, any other religion, or even atheist for all I care, but a person that thinks that 1) There is an Ultimate Truth that rules all humans, 2)it can be fully comprehended by any of us, and 3) they have inside knowledge of said Truth (via Scripture, prophets, or reasoning) is absolution NOT TO BE TRUSTED. They are, in my estimation mentally ill in a way that abuses others with the sincere belief that it's "for their own good". I might be related to or casual friends with this kind of person, but I must take steps to protect myself and my family from their poison.
Personally I think if "what God wants" is so freakin' clear in the bible, why do we have umpteen different Christian denominations? It would seem, based on this person's comments, that there would be no difference of interpretation of any part of the bible, if "what God wants" was so completely clear.
Otherwise, all Christians have to admit the possibility that their interpretation is wrong, but that they are all able to interpret as their conscience leads.
And, ironically, this commenter argued FOR a biblically supported philosophy without using the bible in any way to prove they are correct. :)
The ideas about the value and role of women can be argued and supported either way using the bible; one simply has to choose which to believe.
i*can't*belive*what*i*am*reading!
Quick, write that book!
Us over here in the UK are just getting used to having the C word bandied around all over the place.......and tbh....it's as large an offense as that other C word to my ears.
....now i ned to go have a cup of tea..........
God bless you Pam, keep writing
gmh
oh
i'm a woman
and anglican
and not a nony mouse either ;)
Preach it sister!
Hi Annie (aka Purple Quill!)
I hear ya. But it's such a great big way of insisting I'm right and you're wrong and you can't dialog with me 'cause I have this great big GOD on my side and you don't. Grrr... totally get that because, my Bridge sister, I was once that way myself. For a long, long while. That's another book to write!
@Erin, oh my goodness, my good friend Erin, how many hours have you and I tackled this kind of rhetoric and thinking. And yes, you point out the obvious about where is the commentator's own usage of said absent Bible?
I know I get misunderstood all the time for not quoting the Bible and slinging verses around like rocks to prove my case. I decided a long while back not to use the Bible as a weapon, especially on my blog. It confuses some people. They have no idea how well-versed I am in the Bible or the hundreds and thousands of hours I've spent studying it, going to Bible seminars and classes, the shelves of Bible commentaries I own, etc...I am a Bible Woman. But at The Bridge I have been affirmed about my determination to not scripturize and if some misunderstand that for a lack of knowledge, well, whatever. It's on them. Not me.
Thanks for hopping in on this one!
@Gillian, you know it! And I hope my book will resonate with many UK readers though quite honestly I'm sad it' a book that has to be written at all! Look for it's release on 11-11-11!
@Chris, always gonna preach this one!
The picture says it all-- a mid-century fantasy that oddly appeals to both genders. As for the Apple thing, why do we often miss God and the scribes ironic humor when Adam tried to pin all his faults on 'that woman you gave me'.
May we have the courage to stand on the freedom that Christ won for us!!
This issue of complementarianism is one of many I'm still wrestling with. It's one of those things in the Bible where there are verses that explicitly hold it up. I was raised in it, and I know all of the verses that go along with it, but I really don't like it. My church is relaxedly complementarian: that is, they uphold the principle, but mutual respect must prevail over everything. So while the woman must ultimately submit, her voice must be heard by her husband or else he is doing her wrong. I can stomach this, but I feel like it can be easily abused, and therefore still bothers me. I see how on a bigger scale this same principle can result in a congregation led only by men, with only what a leading man’s interpretation of what a woman said as her voice.
I read through the comments of the older post, and your response to the people that criticized your lack of Bible citations interested me. You said that you know the Bible well (which I don't doubt), but you don't like to cut and paste verses from the Bible to sling in an argument, which I totally respect.
My question is how do you deal with those passages that seem very explicit about what a woman's role is in the church?
@Al, yep, kind of an old, tired out argument, isn't it!
@Susan, totally and amen and thanks for reading Susan!!! Good to stay in touch with you since Convergence!
@Patricia, is this my friend Patti from my former CA days? I totally hear you and then some. Complementarianism sounds so good, but from my POV and what I believe is the principled teachings of Jesus does not match scripture. To me, complementarianism would be like saying slavery is ok just as long you treat your slaves with dignity and respect. They are equal, but have a different God-mandated role on this earth.
This sounds absurd, doesn't it? Yet this exact argument was used by Bible believing Christians to defend the practice of slavery. In America. I will be presenting this in my book, Unladylike, though you can research this topic sooner as there is ample historical record.
I used to accept the tension of bibilcally defended sexism in the modern Church. I no longer can, and I personally can no longer be a member of a faith community that defends inequality which, as harsh as it might sound, is indeed a form of oppression. A polite form, but a form nonetheless.
Patti, I love your thoughtfulness about these things and truly respect your POV. I hope you'll keep pushing up against me for you do it with such grace. You sharpen me, and I hope that I sharpen you.
Bless you my sister!
Pam, that's speaking the truth in love!
@ Dan, totally and trying to live by this motto as my guiding light!
Pam,
I am not the Patti from CA :) though I did live there when I was little.
I get what you're saying regarding the parallels between slaves and women in the Bible. I guess the only difference to me is that slavery is never mandated in the New Testament, only accepted as a social norm (unless I missed something, which is totally possible), while gender roles are mandated. That's where my hang up is.
I'm waffling between taking Paul's words as a cultural mandate specific to where he was preaching, and my inner nagging that warns me against twisting the Bible to fit what I want it to say. Although now that I think about it, I have often heard people explain why the "women must learn in silence" and "women must cover their heads" passages from Paul are simply cultural mandates and later on uphold the gender roles passages from Paul as a timeless standard. What makes them different? Perhaps I’m not the only one wrangling with scripture to fit my worldview.
Thank you for responding! I’m looking forward to your book coming out.
-Patricia
Patti, I really find your struggle familiar. I too was walking that line a few years ago. There are many books about this--many strong theological books that debunk the most common (and limited) contemporary readings of Paul's books. I suggest looking at the book "Why Not Women," as a starter. Then see what else is in that section of the library. It will astound you! Seriously. But I warn you too, once you open that door what you see will change your faith in profound and powerful way.
Thanks for writing about these things. As a woman seminarian who feels called to pastor, these arguments come up for me all the time. I write an exegetical paper on the 1 Timothy passage simply because folks try to use it against me ALL. THE. TIME.
Anonymous makes me sad -- sounds like (s)he is saying that if God mandates that all women should go to hell, that we should joyously serve anyway. That just doesn't ring true for the God I see in the Bible who seems to go to amazing lengths to show love for God's people. Best I can tell, women are included in God's people...
Post a Comment