Alison

At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I think that a lot of guys who would bar women from speaking in church are suffering from overweening pride. It’s the kind of pride that says, “If a man says it, it’s true; if a woman says it, check her sources. (But she shouldn’t be saying it in public)”. These kinds of men are simply NOT willing to learn from Godly women, since they are at risk of being called out for their prideful ways.

You are right; it’s telling that CBMW says “we THINK it’s God’s will…”. To me, that exposes that they’re standing on a very weak foundation, one of worldly pride, not humble willingness to let God work where He will. I believe that men who hold those positions will be held accountable for their pride, and how that pride quenched the Spirit, who poured out gifts without regard to gender. I don’t believe He had a list of “pink” gifts for girls (stereotypically helps, mercy, etc.), and “blue” gifts for boys (“teaching, leadership, etc.), but rather gave (and still ives) the gifts to the willing, regardless of gender. To insist that He operate by the world’s codes (and insist that the church, the ekklesia, the “called-out”, do the same) is shameful, and needs to be repented of.

Cheers! Congrats on the award! Here’s to many more great entries. Thanks for your work; keep on keepin’ on!

Praise the Lord. I am happy that everyone is accounted for and in one piece. I will be praying for you and your husband, as well as the team as they continue working. May God be with you, your husband, and the team down there.

Jewel,

Pinklight is very right. Spend some time engaging the Scriptures, and you will be surprised. I know I was, and I grew up in an egalitarian church! But when I engaged Holy Writ for myself (when I was struggling with the complementarian issues others were raising), I saw it for myself, and thank God I did. You’re in a good place here.

Exactly, Cheryl.

What bugs me about the whole idea of a woman being unable to receive divine revelation without a male interpreter is that there’s nothing in the Scripture that indicates it. I would think that the Scripure is clear: “The is one God, and there is ONE Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5a, emphasis mine). What in that verse gives the idea that there needs to be another mediator for a woman to receive anything from God? I haven’t read anything else in the Scripture that indicates that, unless I haven’t been paying attention for the last 27 years! Grrrrr.

I think I’m joining the cringe party. I now understand what’s meant by “locker room talk”, especially on the net. I’m thankful that I don’t read men’s forums, otherwise I might be tempted to throw my laptop out of a fifth floor window.

As for 1 Cor. 7, I would argue that there is no hierarchy either stated or implied. I’ve sat with that passage for quite some time, trying to ferret one out, but every time I’ve tried, I’ve ended up violating the spirit of mutuality that’s inherent to that text, which has rendered the text (and Paul’s argument) completely unstable. I’d love to know, gengwall, just why that argument is invalid. I have a hunch; I’d love to see if my hunch is right.

Gengwall–

My first response to that is unprintable. (At least in polite society, anyway).

I will give you this: your proposition is very interesting. By appealing to physiological reality, you’re setting up an incredibly difficult question to answer. There’s a part of me that’s thinking, Holy biology, Batman, I can’t believe he went there! Honestly, that’s an argument that would never have occurred to me in a million years.

As for my thoughts on it, I happen to believe that it’s not true. Even though it is physiologically true that a man’s sex drive is stronger than a woman’s, I don’t believe that that can be used to reinforce a hierarchical structure in the marriage. Otherwise, what does one do with Paul’s argument in Ephesians 5 that the husband is to serve the wife sacrificially, as Christ served the Church? In other words, show me the evidence. You’ve bit on an intriguing morsel; I’d love to know if there’s more to it than a simple (arguably facile) appeal to biology as a reinforcement of male dominance.

I have the spoon, Hannah, and I’m gagging on it. The mental gymnastics some of the comps go through in order to cling to the sacred cow of male headship would make any Olympian dizzy!

The fact is that use of authority chokes out intimacy. If one partner is always domineering, there is no room for real respect and communication to take hold, since the one being dominated will often resort to manipulation in order to gain something of what they want (even if it’s not all of what they want). The one doing the dominating has no idea of how blind he or she is to the needs of the one being dominated, and, in being so blind, cannot respond in compassion, but only anger and recrimination, resorting to their “trump card” in order to “put the other person back in his/her place”.

Is it any wonder, then, that in these types of situations, there is no real room for agreement, or the wonderful “symphony” that the Greek of 1 Corinthians 7 talks about? I think that a situation of mutual submission is one that really glorifies God, as each partner sets him or herself aside as he or she seeks the good of the other. After all, doesn’t Philippians 2:3-4 (which I think is a phenomenal text for marriage) call all of us as Christians to do just that? A dominating partner can’t empty him or herself, nor can the one being dominated, since they are both striving after what they want, forgetting that what they want as individuals needs to take a backseat to strengthening the relationship, and a significant backseat to glorifying God. So, burn the “male entitlement” card. It has no place in a Christ-honoring marriage.

“Christ has ALL the authority” is definitely barking up the right tree. You are very right, gengwall, in saying that because of this, Christ cannot be compared to any man. However, given our desire to claim authority over each other, this is often the last thing we want to hear (and the first thing we willingly forget). Until we get it through our cotton-pickin’ heads that Christ has the final and ultimate authority, we will be locked in power struggles that allow spiritual abuse to happen. It’s a really crummy thing, that we spend so much time debating roles that we lose reality: that around us is a lost and dying world that doesn’t give a rat’s hindquarters who has the authority! Once we lose that reality, we start losing opportunities to set all the power struggles aside and really make a difference–opportunities for which we are all accountable for using.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Cheryl. The ideas presented by a lot of complementarians are entirely man-centered. God “ain’t got nuttin’ to do wit’ it”.

The problem comes when we start pointing out the contradictions. We get accused of being “out of submission”, “prideful”, “after the flesh”, etc., when they don’t see just how they’re being the things they accuse us of. But since they’re men, it’s ok. They can get away with it, since the Word of God (at first blush) oh-so-conveniently justifies what they think.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I think I made my morning cappucino a little too strong. I think at root is pride (their own). Some of these people think they can never be wrong, and so, they make women teaching a “salvic issue” in order to give themselves the ultimate authority. This is no more and no less than idolatry. I was actually considering at one point (before I discovered your blog) of becoming more complementarian (that’s what I thought a good evangelical “should be”) but I now know that I can be a good evangelical can be an egalitarian as well. I’m now happy that I can read your work, since it exposes the idolatry that lies at the heart of a lot of complementarian theology, and the pride that is underneath it. Keep up the good work, Cheryl.

Bingo. That’s the $64 question (I’m feeling a little broke today). Unless I’m completely missing it, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the Scriptures that equates a woman’s teaching or non-teaching role with her salvation. I don’t think the two are comparable at all.

I say that because to threaten a woman’s eternity over whether or not she teaches is the height of arrogance! I simply don’t believe that the two issues can be put together, unless I’m still missing how it works. I happen to think that one’s salvation is strictly between that person and God, no one else, not even the person(s) who led them to Christ. Therefore, to threaten a person (read: woman) and her eternal security even when she is teaching Biblical truth smacks of manipulation, bullying and unwillingness to let the Spirit do what He does best: speak through inspired men AND women in order to lead the lost to Christ.

PS to Cheryl: If my tone’s a little too strong, I’m sorry. My feathers were ruffled, and I fear I might have responded out of emotion rather than pure reason.

Mara,

I’m not sure you’re being a pain. I’m with you. I get tired of certain men insisting on keeping women from fully expressing their Spirit-given gifts of leadership and wisdom in the name of “keeping them in their place”. I would say that’s quenching the Spirit, something that both men and women are explicitly told NOT to do (and props to whoever can find that Scripture, since my brain can’t think of where it is).

If it’s any encouragement, keep encouraging the women you are working with and ministering beside (and to). As they claim their God-given gifts, they will have a huge impact, especially on the fear-and ego-driven men who insist on keeping them down. This (hopefully) works something like a root driving itself into a wall: it keeps working its way down, expanding as it goes, and eventually it will bring the wall down, since it has weakened it all the way to its foundation. Once the wall (in this case being gender separation theologies) comes down, we’ll find that there was really nothing to be afraid of after all, whether we were on the side of the hierarchicalists afraid of women claiming their God-given gifts, or women too afraid to use them. We’ll find that the freedom we have is a beautiful thing, and one we’ll use to build up to the Body, not tear it down.

That’s the problem, Amos Love.

I think it’s part of our fallen nature to get attached to status and titles, forgetting that the leader’s role is truly to serve, not to be power-hungry, manipulative, bossy, or what have you. And we’re toast when we do.

The fact is, Jesus told us that whoever wants to lead must be a servant, and that the last will be first, and the first will be last. This runs counter to our fallen, me-first way of being. We get so attached to titles because we think they make us “something”, forgetting that the Word of God already tells us who we most truly are: treasured children of the Most High God (to borrow a phrase that’s been used around my church). If we spent more time in the Word and let GOD speak that truth into us, we’d be much better off.

Exactly, gengwall. Didn’t Jesus say on multiple occasions that whoever wants to be a leader is to be the servant? That’s a needed reminder since sometimes my ego goes nuts and those words help me come back down to a more realistic perspective.

Thanks, Kay. I was afraid that for as many times I’ve read those passages, I had completely missed something. I’ve read NRSV, TNIV, NIV, and the NKJV, and nothing’s been in any of those translating the original Greek as “leader”. Quite honestly, I think that’s an attempt to hold on to the world’s ideas of the man as the dominant one, and the woman as the meek follower, and attach submission to fleshly notion of power and authority.

However, I think the best definition of submission in general is found, not in any of the marriage passages, but in Philippians 2:3-4, where Paul tells us, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (NIV). Working from that, then, I define submission as a willingness to put the other before myself, and let go of my agenda in order that the mutual agenda (such as building a God-glorifying marriage) is fulfilled. From that perspective, then, submission doesn’t have anything to do with authority whatever, but rather is an outworking of Christ’s nature as Servant in me. I don’t know if that makes any sense, but it’s what’s bouncing around in my brain right now.

Thanks, gengwall. This brings up the $64,000 question for me: If submission in a marriage is mutual, then why does there seem to be a need for a “leader” (usually the man) in the home? This is a question I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to, as even the softest comps usually mumble something about how the headship of the husband is a reflection of Christ’s headship of the Church, and how in that relationship, He is the leader and the Church, out of necessity, follows Him.

But whenever I read the relevant passages (in this case, Ephesians 5:21-33), the word “leader” is never found in any of the translations I’m reading. Unless that’s in the original Greek and I’m just missing it, I still stumble over that. The comps I’ve talked to tell me it’s about having an unsubmissive/unteachable spirit, that there’s probably some pride in my life that needs to be broken. That’s true, but it doesn’t answer my dang question! If anyone has any info, and can point me into some more resources, I’d love it.

It seems like the traditionalists want it both ways. They want the wife’s submission, and they want the husbands to be able to get away with anything just short of murder. The two things can’t exist in the same space, and it’s sickening how traditionalists like Piper try to force them to. It simply does not make sense, and it goes back to the old double standards that have existed for men and women since the dawn of time.

Enough. We as Christians aren’t called to be like the world, and this includes the way we treat each other, especially in the most intimate of our relationships. Grady’s reading of the Ephesians passage in question is dead-on, Cheryl. Thanks for sharing it. I plan to print this article and show it to some of my “submit-no-matter-what” sisters at church. Even though they are well-intentioned, they are complicit in situations of abuse, and should be held accountable for enabling it to continue. Let’s continue pulling back the carpet and exposing this line of thought, until all of our marriages in the church give glory to God, without putting either partner in jeopardy. I don’t think God is glorified by that.

Cheryl,

Love that!

It’s so funny to think of, yet it points to an unfunny reality: the lenses and biases we view Scripture through. It reminds me that we cannot “lean on (our) own understanding” (see Proverbs 3:5-6), but need to lean on the wisdom of God in order to rightly handle the Word of God. Great reminder.

“Conundrum” is an understatement. I’d love to hear what Mark has to say on this one. It seems like one has to twist oneself into an impossible hermenutical pretzel in order to “prove” that Eve was out of submission before the Fall. (Warning: Commencing rant). It’s one of those questions that exposes some of the comps as litle more than power-hungry egomaniacs, who manipulate the Scripture to serve their self-centeredness, instead of submitting to it and serving their wives. (Sorry, needed to get that off my chest. Rant concluded).

Cheryl, you’re very welcome. If only convincing some were easier….(sigh).

My facetious answer to “does a woman need a spiritual covering” is “no more so than a fish needs a bicycle”.

Snarkiness aside, I think the whole idea of spiritual covering is ridiculous on its face, especially when it’s used to dominate or control, as if women were inherently incapable of making their own decisions, much less being held accountable for those decisions. I love what you’ve said here:

“Those who appoint themselves as a spiritual covering over their wives may be tempted to keep her under their own control instead of lifting her up to be a mature, functioning member of the body of Christ with full authority in her own gifts. Staying under a “covering” may be a comfortable place for a woman who has been taught to believe that she bears no responsibility whatsoever as long as she is obeying her “head”. However the Scriptures never offer such a teaching. All of us are responsible for our own actions and God shows this clearly in the way that he called both Adam and Eve to account for each of their personal actions”.

Exactly. I don’t think I could have said it better. If “covering” a woman is merely the shell for keeping her down, then that’s a serious sin–the man is attempting to hinder (quench) the Holy Spirit, something that we’re explicitly told NOT to do. I just don’t get how the comps don’t seem to understand that. The excuse of “I was just following my covering; I didn’t know action X would be wrong!” doesn’t hold water, nor does the idea that Jesus is insufficient spiritual cover for a woman (funny how He’s sufficient for a man, IMO).

Kay, a lot of it is because of the desire for there to be a “leader” and “follower”. We as humans are remarkably comfortable in one-up, one-down situations, especially when we are the “one-up”. We chafe when we’re the “one-down”, and this has been my problem about submission/headship for many years. It reared its head again at Bible study last weekend when one of the women was talking about how, even in a dating situation, we as women need to be watchful and discerning about our dates, to see what kind of “leadership” they take, and if we would be OK submitting to them once married. They were saying things like, “Does he decide where to eat, what movies to see? Does he take the lead in planning outings?” It made it sound like compromise was a dirty word!

The other thing that’s always bothered me is how the whole “leading” in a marriage thing works, especially where there are areas where the wife is stronger than the husband. To take a big and often contentious one: finances. If she’s the stronger mind financially (understands budgeting, makes wise decisions) and he can barely keep his checkbook balanced, should she have to “submit” to him, even if it puts their marriage in financial jeopardy? I would hope not.

This is where I appreciate your work, Cheryl. It can be so easy to attach headship/submission to notions of authority, as if submission were to be the same as mindless subordination. I don’t think the two are the same, at all. Thanks for shedding some light on what has always been a murky subject, especially now as I prepare for my own upcoming marriage. (If someone tries to get me to say “obey” in my wedding vows, I’ll just go get married by a justice of the peace!)

PS: That statement in no way excuses any of them for their actions! Sometimes the most compassionate thing to give someone is a swift kick in the hindquarters, particularly if they are using their position to tear people down, not build them up.

Frank,

If this is the faux-heresy club, I’m another card-carrying member. I winced with pain as I read your story (both the first posting and the correction/explanation). It seems to me that those who hold worldly power will do anything to keep it, regardless of who gets hurt in the process. This is the exact opposite of the integrity you showed in your correction/explanation, and I commend you.

As far as that hymn goes, it’s so true, and a great choice for a theme song. It isn’t always easy to be a Christian, especially one who holds egalitarian views. I’ve been accused of heresy by some folks, and I attend an officially egalitarian church! But I know that under all the accusations, power grabs, and disingenous manipulations (even in officially egalitarian churches) are hurting people who are in need of compassion and healing. They just might not realize it, or might not want to do the often dirty work of looking inside at their garbage, instead of all the external arguments.

Wow. The Aussie blog conference has been incredible. I loved your post, as well as the post on submission. Best dang explanation of something I’d been thinking: that when submission (which, thanks to The Shack, I’d come to understand as simply putting the needs of others ahead of my own interests and seeking to serve, rather than be served, a la Jesus) gets tied to authority (subordination) that’s when a good thing (mutual service and respect) can start to devolve into gamesmanship and struggles for power that Jesus Himself probably would not have participated in. Wish I had seen that sooner.

Funny…my anti-spam word was “fall” and that makes me think that spousal abuse is the result of the tragedy in Genesis 3. It can’t be anything but. Both men and women, now that they know sin, are subject to a curse that was never God’s intention in the original creation: hierarchicalism, with the potential for abuse. God’s intention in Genesis 1 was that both the man and the woman, as cobearers of His image, would both be the caretakers of Creation. There wasn’t ONE WORD in that text about how the woman was “under the man’s leadership” or anything like that. When sin entered the world, the desire to dominate and exercise undue power over one another came into being, and that’s what God was addressing in Genesis 3. I don’t believe that the “he shall rule over you” clause in the curse addressed to Eve was EVER God’s intention. If it was, then why didn’t He say so earlier?!

Nope, spousal abuse (and other abuses of authority) come straight from one of Hell’s most pernicious lies: that in order for one person to “win”, another has to “lose”. I happen to think that comp theology, since it is so big on this one-up, one-down issue, really fails to address the kind of pain that it causes. It’s bought into the lie, and until it realizes that, it will fail.

I fear you’re right, Dave. It seems that some men are so threatened by the idea of women in any sort of ministry (other than in the kitchen preparing/cleaning up after Communion or church suppers, or in children’s ministry, up to a certain age, of course) that they will do anything to keep that from happening. This includes intellectual sloth, dishonesty, insults, and deliberate divisiveness. Why can’t they just admit that for a lot of them, the real issue is that they’re afraid that the women will do a better job in leading than they will, and they’ll be replaced?

Sorry for the rant, but that’s what crossed my mind. As far as Mike Seaver’s equating women teaching to homosexuality, that deserves a good BULL! I’m not following his logic, and I refuse to believe that the two can be equated. If he can, with solid intellectual integrity and spiritual grace, show me how, then maybe my BS detector will stop going off. But right now, it can probably be heard a (figurative) mile away. Grrrrrrr.

LOL @ Anca. Your anecdote reveals just how some patriarchalists distort the gospel and Paul’s letters into saying things that they might never have meant to say! It takes some pretty rigorous mental gymnastics to get from the point A of a polite (though tongue in cheek, I take it) reminder to leave the dang toilet seat down (sorry, my guy does that too, so it bugs the crud out of me) and get to the point B of saying that women can’t use the bathroom!

In the same way, it takes the same kind of mental gymnastics to twist personal letters into universal commands, meant for all time. I have two questions for complementarians, which I doubt I will ever see answered: 1. Why didn’t Jesus say anything about the role of women, and 2. If God didn’t intend for women to be leaders, why did He give them leadership gifts? I’d love to see them quit the mental gymnastics and answer the questions honestly.

Never thought of it that way, gengwall. I thought through the issue today at work a little more, and realized that part of the hangup for me has been “leading” vs. “submitting”, and the trouble I was having with those terms. I further realized that there are going to be things in my marriage that my spouse is stronger in dealing with, and my “submitting” to him will mean letting him lead in those areas, and vice versa. I can only hope that he will understand that if there’s something I’m stronger in, his “submitting” to me will allow me to thrive by doing what I do best, just as my “submitting” to his strengths does for him.

This might be starry-eyed naivete, but I believe it can be fleshed out. I know it will probably be incredibly difficult, but I believe both he and I will be the stronger for it. As for my spiritual mentor, I believe that she’s sharing from her heart, and I need to respect that.

Thanks much, Cheryl. The whole debate is much like a dog chasing is own tail sometimes; funny to watch, but not funny to actually be the dog chasing its tail. I say that because I’ve felt like the dog: I’ve felt like I’ve hit on answers through the Spirit, only to be told by a comp that what I’ve hit on is wrong.

I’ve come to realize that regardless of what my mentor thinks, my spouse and I (if I ever get married) will have to prayerfully discern what will work for us, which will look different than what works for someone else’s marriage. Hopefully, we’ll both be stumbling forward together, and even when we step on each other’s toes, we can work it out in the way God shows us, independent of what other people think I “should” do.

I’m with you, pinklight. In my conversations with my spiritual mentor, who is trying to teach me a more “gentle” complementarian philosophy so that I lose my independent spirit before becoming a wife, I’ve wondered, without asking, Where’s the PROOF for complementarian ideas, other than the twisted interpretations of a few texts? It feels like “The Stepford Wives”, something that God, I don’t think, ever intended for us as women. It’s something that I just can’t figure out, no matter how much comp theology I read. I just can’t make it make sense.

PS to you, pinklight: I completely understand what ‘those days’ are like…I think I’m having one today!

This was awesome. I’ve read parts 1 and 2, and gained a whole lot of light on that passage, and others in Paul’s writings that seem to put women down. I think the interview exposes a whole lot of his most likely real intention: solving particular problems. He’s not saying “This is the way it MUST be until Christ comes again”; he’s merely saying “This is how I want you to deal with this issue among your congregation”. To try to derive an immutable universal principle from a circumstantial teaching is like trying to make a cat into a dog. It simply can’t be done, unless you want to violate the whole of the Scriptural witness, to say nothing of putting your opinions into the Holy Spirit’s mouth!