Amaranth

I’ve noticed something, in following this and other discussions. After haggling about heads and bodies and passages and culture and what Paul may or may not have meant to say in what text…both egals and comps eventually employ what I call a “shut down” argument. When I see this, I know that whoever it is who is talking has made up their mind, and is no longer willing to entertain the other viewpoint. Some people refuse to think further than the shut down, no matter what evidence is presented to them.

Both parties, in the end, appeal directly to God. But what I have noticed, and I find this telling, is that those who support the complimentarian stance will appeal to God’s *authority* as the reason they won’t change, while those who support the egalitarian stance will appeal to God’s *love* as the reason they won’t change.

Comp shut-down argument: “Why can’t you accept the possibility that man over woman is just the way God set things up? God can do things however he wants, and we don’t always understand it, and we don’t always have to like it. But our opinion doesn’t change the way things are.”

Egal shut-down argument: “Why can’t you accept the possibility that male superiority is wrong, and that God didn’t endorse it? How could that be a *bad* thing? Why would a God of love set things up in such a way that half the human race would always be subordinate to the other?”

Comps must appeal to God’s authority, because in truth, who COULD possibly understand how a God of love would desire men to rule over women? There’s just no way to construe that into a loving action…so they pull the “God’s ways/morals/reasons are mysterious and we cannot understand them” card. (Um, hello, Jesus? “Whoever sees me sees the Father”?) It relieves them of the burden of perpetuating a worldview that they themselves sometimes admit makes it more difficult to live as loving Christians. “Well, don’t get mad at *me*, it’s not like *I* set it up that way, *God’s* the one who made the rules, who are we to question?”

“12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

I guess pointing the finger at God to absolve oneself of moral responsibility never gets old.

Egals, on the other hand, have seen that mutuality between the genders naturally creates and fosters a more loving and Christlike atmosphere in a marriage, and have decided to err on the side of love…because they feel that’s what the God they see in Jesus would have done. Some even seem willing to stand against the perceived God in the books in order to stand on the side of love, and as such, on the side of the true God.

I feel that if you have to appeal to God’s authority because you cannot appeal to his love…something is wrong with your argument. I mean, which argument speaks more of a trustworthy God? “God loves you; it would behoove you to listen” or “God can do whatever the hell he wants with you; it would behoove you to listen”? Both may be true, but which way did your Jesus choose to interact with people? Hmm…

That, and that alone, is enough to put me personally solidly in the egal camp. We can argue Scripture and lexicons and interpretations ’til we’re blue in the face (or red…when things get frustrating), but to me it comes down to this: In an instance where authority and love seem to clash…am I to believe that God’s authority is the ultimate answer, or am I to believe God’s love is the ultimate answer? I don’t worship God because he’s all-powerful, and can do whatever he wants. I worship God because he loves me. I would never trust a God just because he had all the power. I will, however, trust a God who has all the power if I know he loves me. I trust an appeal to loving authority. I balk at an appeal to a loveless/inscrutable authority.