gengwall

I have just finished the second weekly session in Men’s Fraternity on the topic “The Biblical Definition of Manhood”. Now, Men;s Fraternity is a program I endorse, and its leader, Robert Lewis, is at worst Comp light, although my reading of other materials he has produced leads me to believe he is solidly egalitarian, at least in the home. Never-the-less, this focus on men being “designed by God to lead” was at the front of those last two sessions. I believe CBMW believes even stronger in this design element which leads to the conclusion that female leadership strips a man of his designed calling and even his built in yearning. In their mind then, it is not a pride issue at all. It is a glorifying God issue – it glorifies God when men act in accordance with their God given design. Conversely, it is shameful to a man – in essence a repudiation of his design – if a woman takes his place in leadership (which inherently includes teaching).

The linch pin in this philosophy is the leadership “design” of males. What is that idea based on? It is based on the same old tired arguments from Genesis 2 and 3: Adam’s being first created, Adam’s naming of Eve, Adam’s “job” of tending the garden, Adam’s teaching to Eve God’s command about the fruit, and Adam’s being approached first after the fall. The complementarian interpretation of these events leads them to the conclusion that the male was designed to be the leader. It doesn’t matter to them that scripture never says this literally because they believe scripture says this suggestively. Because man has this built in design to lead, and subsequent yearning to fulfill that design, it is shameful for a woman to deny him.

Now, as is typical with complementarian arguments, the premise is entirely false. That is where the debate needs to begin, as I have attempted to point out in my “Show Stoppers” series of posts. Until you move complementarians off of this fundimental belief in God’s design for males, the most rational arguments and appeals to scripture will fall on deaf ears, or worse, be construed as an attack against the very will of God.