I just leaves me questioning what is the good fruit of hierarchical complementarianism? Because it seems all a good fruit he describes is egalitarian in nature.
I really wish one of the things he wanted us to know about complementarianism is how good the fruit is with some examples it actually being good because what I've seen has been consistently bad. Hierarchical complementarianism only seems to benefit relationships in theory, which is why you see so many complementarians giving it lip service and then acting as egalitarian as possible in their relationships.
It all seems to boil down to somehow it's very important to limit women, although there is no good explanation as to how to determine exactly how God wants women limited (thus the spectrum of what women are allowed to do that keeps us on our toes as we move through different Christian spaces). And there is no explanation as to why God wants to limit women. It used to be the ontological inferiority of women, but obviously the reverend finds that offensive. Then it was the eternal subordination of the son, but now that's too close to heresy. So why is it so important to limit women if they are equal, gifted, and we need more of their leadership like the writer claims? Also, why did God place no limits on men using their spiritual gifts?
I want a coherent argument as to what the boundaries are, why they exist, and how God blesses us through them, because a hierarchical complementarian writing I'm not personally convinced isn't enough. The onus is on them to develop something that is clear, consistent and has a reason for it. Because egalitarianism does: men and women are both created in the image of God and are given the same role of being fruitful and exercising dominion (Gen 1:28) and throughout the Bible gifted women do the same things as men despite the patriarchy predicted by the curse, and there are no scriptures that limit women who are spiritually gifted (Romans 12), educated, and show the fruit of the spirit (1 Tim 2 an unsubmissive woman/wife who Paul is commanding to learn vs. Prisca, an educated woman who taught). This is consistent with the Bible's message of not having favoritism or division in the body. (James, 1 John, Galatians 3:28)
Andy is definitely a better type of complementarian. I wish he and his wonderful wife were full monty egalitarians. But its' between them, God, and conscience.
Well that was interesting. But leaves me wondering exactly what he understands complementarianism to be/teach. Cause I’m not super familiar with a complementarian position that is Ok with ordained women pastors and training women for church ministry/leadership and the man doing childcare to support the wife’s career. Where is their line? Is that an Australian thing?
Michelle, good question. The thing is that complementarianism is a spectrum from hard core patriatchy to semi-egalitarianism where my wife is a priest but she would never want to be a bishop. I think the "line" - for some - is that women in ministry are okay but they still have a ceiling that they reserve for men.
Well that’s interesting. I’ve def had more experience here in the US with the harder core version. The softer version I guess raises questions about one’s understanding of authority/hierarchy and leadership. And also how scripture is understood to be limiting women not from certain functions (ie teaching men) but from occupying certain “levels” of power or oversight - when the NT didn’t have our current ecclesial structures.
I do appreciate that there is a spectrum - certainly true for egalitarians too who don’t want to all be seen as radical feminists who deny all gender distinction.
I’m too egalitarian for complementarían a and I’m too complementarían for the egalitarians.
That’s how I live my life. I think the Bible speaks of both throughout redemptive history and I’m convinced neither position is tenable in light of redemptive historical.
I just leaves me questioning what is the good fruit of hierarchical complementarianism? Because it seems all a good fruit he describes is egalitarian in nature.
I really wish one of the things he wanted us to know about complementarianism is how good the fruit is with some examples it actually being good because what I've seen has been consistently bad. Hierarchical complementarianism only seems to benefit relationships in theory, which is why you see so many complementarians giving it lip service and then acting as egalitarian as possible in their relationships.
It all seems to boil down to somehow it's very important to limit women, although there is no good explanation as to how to determine exactly how God wants women limited (thus the spectrum of what women are allowed to do that keeps us on our toes as we move through different Christian spaces). And there is no explanation as to why God wants to limit women. It used to be the ontological inferiority of women, but obviously the reverend finds that offensive. Then it was the eternal subordination of the son, but now that's too close to heresy. So why is it so important to limit women if they are equal, gifted, and we need more of their leadership like the writer claims? Also, why did God place no limits on men using their spiritual gifts?
I want a coherent argument as to what the boundaries are, why they exist, and how God blesses us through them, because a hierarchical complementarian writing I'm not personally convinced isn't enough. The onus is on them to develop something that is clear, consistent and has a reason for it. Because egalitarianism does: men and women are both created in the image of God and are given the same role of being fruitful and exercising dominion (Gen 1:28) and throughout the Bible gifted women do the same things as men despite the patriarchy predicted by the curse, and there are no scriptures that limit women who are spiritually gifted (Romans 12), educated, and show the fruit of the spirit (1 Tim 2 an unsubmissive woman/wife who Paul is commanding to learn vs. Prisca, an educated woman who taught). This is consistent with the Bible's message of not having favoritism or division in the body. (James, 1 John, Galatians 3:28)
I am curious how he defines Egalitarianism. Though, living in the States, I wish there were more complementarians of Dr. Judd's variety.
Andy is definitely a better type of complementarian. I wish he and his wonderful wife were full monty egalitarians. But its' between them, God, and conscience.
Well that was interesting. But leaves me wondering exactly what he understands complementarianism to be/teach. Cause I’m not super familiar with a complementarian position that is Ok with ordained women pastors and training women for church ministry/leadership and the man doing childcare to support the wife’s career. Where is their line? Is that an Australian thing?
Michelle, good question. The thing is that complementarianism is a spectrum from hard core patriatchy to semi-egalitarianism where my wife is a priest but she would never want to be a bishop. I think the "line" - for some - is that women in ministry are okay but they still have a ceiling that they reserve for men.
Well that’s interesting. I’ve def had more experience here in the US with the harder core version. The softer version I guess raises questions about one’s understanding of authority/hierarchy and leadership. And also how scripture is understood to be limiting women not from certain functions (ie teaching men) but from occupying certain “levels” of power or oversight - when the NT didn’t have our current ecclesial structures.
I do appreciate that there is a spectrum - certainly true for egalitarians too who don’t want to all be seen as radical feminists who deny all gender distinction.
I’m too egalitarian for complementarían a and I’m too complementarían for the egalitarians.
That’s how I live my life. I think the Bible speaks of both throughout redemptive history and I’m convinced neither position is tenable in light of redemptive historical.