Can you make a biblical case for complementarianism apart from the American culture wars? Is your complementarianism with all its lists of dos and don’ts comprehensible in a rural village in Mongolia or in the slums of Nairobi?"
This literally stopped me in my tracks (or since I was sitting down, stopped my eyes from reading further.)
It was living in Outer Mongolia (we were there more than a decade) that I began to question so much of what I took to be "truth". I began to realize how much of the way I read and understood the Bible was through my American Evangelical lens. Now after almost 25 years outside our "home" culture, having lived in three different cultures other than my own, I realize how much our "lenses" color our interpretations/applications of scripture.
Thank you for the challenge to really look at and understand why Christian communities might interpret things the way they do....our cultures definitely influence our interpretations of scripture. You have to look no further than Bible translations to see this....ESV vs NLT vs NASB etc. What is emphasized? What was the culture like in the days when the original scriptures were written? What choice of words were used? What was added/left out/mis-written from the ancient manuscripts that have been handed down when review/analysis has been done to insure there are no errors?
We need to remember that none of us have all the answers and we should always be growing in our knowledge...and remember we filter everything through our own lens...I pray we would all learn to filter through God's lens.
Hey Michael. May I register 2 challenges, brother?
(1) To say complementarianism is “culture war” presumes it breaks with what’s come before. Demonstrating discontinuity with the previous theological consensus would make your point, as in, “Churches BEFORE the 1950s were mostly egalitarian. Then culture war happened and they began to believe ‘X.’” Okay, that would give legs to your argument. Whereas, if the historical record is: “Before 1950s most churches believed X. And now CBMW also propounds X,” then it’s harder to sustain the case that culture war CAUSED complementarianism. I sincerely don’t know: has much been written demonstrating significant discontinuity?
(2) But now suppose discontinuity. Let me offer an alternative historical reconstruction and then offer my second challenge. Suppose some theological development did occur with how 1980s CBMW complementarians talked about men and women. I’m willing to grant the some expressions or applications of CBMW complementarianism have been both wrong and culturally located. But I’m also inclined to say: doesn’t good theological development typically work that way? With imperfect first attempts followed by better and better second and third attempts? We both know theological development occurs in response to challenges, eg Nicaea to Arianism, Luther to indulgences, 9Marks to virtual church 😉. Luther is good. Calvin is even better. That’s how I view complementarianism beginning in the 1980s. First wave 1980s CBMW complementarianism offered good responses to external (2nd wave feminism) and internal (egalitarianism in biblical studies departments and churches) challenges. It helped the church more carefully tackle this previously uncontested area. Now, the first wave of complementarian writers or their popularizing pastors didn’t get everything right in the 1980s, just like Luther didn’t get everything right. But the general thrust of that movement was in a more biblical direction, yes, in response to internal and external forces pushing against the Bible.
Yet never mind my own historical reconstruction. That’s not actually my second challenge. Here’s my challenge: both your explanation (comp is culture war) and mine (comp is good doctrinal development) are question-begging. They assume the rightness of our biblical perspectives. If an egalitarian read of Scripture is right, then, yeah, culture war. If a comp read is right, yeah, good doctrinal development. In short, the REAL conversation is and will forever remain an exegetical one: what does the Bible say?
Bottom line: to sustain the “culture war is the cause of complementarianism” argument, which has certainly grown in currency of late, one needs to (i) demonstrate discontinuity with the past; and (ii) demonstrate that it really WAS NOT their reading of the Bible which caused John Piper and Tom Schreiner and Wayne Grudem and others to come to complementarian conclusions. It really WAS the culture war. And, again, I don’t know how you demonstrate that without presuming that your explanations of the Bible are right.
I offer these challenges in a spirit of friendship and affection, brother.
Hi Jonathan, thanks for your respectful disagreement.
To respond to your points:
(1) The Danvers statement is top and tailed by references to culture, which shows that by its OWN WORDS, it a response to culture. It is more anti-feminism than retrieving a tradition. The proof of that is that so much of the teachings of complementarian leaders are based on patriarchal nuclear-family consumerist suburban America: "Christianity has a masculine feel" and "Women cannot be police officers." That is neither biblical nor tradition - it's weird parochially American pro-patriarchy stuff. If your do's and don'ts for male and female roles have no precedent in the great tradition and no traction in the global church, then it is your own totes cray cray innovation.
(2) Even if some kind of patriarchy was the norm for most of Christian history - though I doubt it is apostolic - I don't think the CBMW version is the same as Christian history. Even the patristic period and middle ages had prominent female leaders, mystics, martyrs, and missionaries who were venerated and encouraged. I've got female friends who have converted to RCC and Greek Orthodox who tell me that (ironically) they have had more opportunities to preach and teach in their churches with a male-only priesthood than in their former evangelical churches. If you want to infer a continuity of patriarchy, sure, there is some, but the discontinuities will show that American complementarianism is indubitably more James Dobson than Gregory the Great! Or, let me say, I sincerely doubt that John Chrysostom or Macrina the Younger would have written an endorsement for Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
(3) Our relationship with tradition on the church and women requires discernment. I for one don't want to reiterate Jerome's view that women are the root of all evil, but I find commendable Thomas Cranmer's view of protecting wives from domestic violence. We have to be conscious of retrieving "the faith delivered once and for all" (Jude) as well as the prospect of the "improvement in our religion" (Vincent of Lerins).
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I sincerely expected your reply would be intelligent, and you didn't disappoint. Even in disagreement I appreciate that about you. I certainly agree with your third point. May I offer one more push back by responding to the first two points? I'll then do my best to leave it at that, happy for you to take the final word.
To your first point: I don't deny that CMBW is responding to culture. Indeed, that was my point when I said good theology is often a response to momentary challenges inside and outside the church. Yet the mere fact that something is a response doesn't make it untrue. It's lack of fidelity to the Bible does. Nicaea was a response. The 95 theses were a response. Biblical teaching in general--in the pulpit on Sunday and in books of theology--takes the Bible and tries to use the Bible to respond to the public and private sins and heresies of the moment. That's not all it does. It also tries to set the agenda. But it also responds. In short, there's a difference between saying, "This theology offers a response to momentary cultural needs," and, "This theology is entirely or mostly a cultural artifact, manufactured whole cloth to suit those theologian's political purposes." As I understand it, you and others have been making the latter charge, while I'd offer the former rendering of the last half decade. Further, I'm saying that both of our claims rely on assumptions about what the biblical text really does say. And I'm also saying that, in order to sustain the latter charge, I think you need to show the historical receipts: "Before, theology 'X' was the consensus--see Augustine here, Calvin here, and Bavinck here (or whomever); now CBMW says "Y." Which brings me to...
2) To respond to elements in both of your first two points. It feels like you're relying on vague generalities regarding the past ("Even the patristic period and middle ages had prominent female leaders, mystics, martyrs, and missionaries who were venerated and encouraged") and getting specific only when pointing to the present. Plus, the present examples you give ("Christianity has a masculine feel"; "women cannot be police officers") feel cherry-picked. If I, too, were to speak in vague generalities, I'd say that complementarians today also hold up plenty of prominent female voices. You may not agree with those female voices, but there are plenty: Elizabeth Elliot, Jani Erickson Tada, Trillia Newbell, Martha Peace, Jen Wilkins, Abigail Dodds, Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong (speaking of SBC lol), Susan Hunt, Mary Cassian, Keri Folmar, Melissa Kruger, Megan Hill, Jackie Hill Perry, Sarah Zylstra, Claire Smith, Rosaria Butterfield, and on and on I could go. So, again, I think what would prove convincing to people like me are actual historical receipts: "Augustine said THIS. Calvin said THIS. Bavinck said THIS" and offer such a pile of them that it becomes clear, "Oh, yeah, the consensus WAS different." But none of these recent books do this. They merely make the assertion: "complementarianism is culture war." And people who are already looking for ammo against complementarianism quickly say, "Yep, it's culture war." The thing is, nothing has been done to actually demonstrate a change of consensus between past and present, on which the whole point hangs. With regard to your specific charges against the present: to a thick complementarian like me, they feel cherry-picked and non-representative of the heart of what complementarianism promotes. They feel like you're talking about one or two writer's debatable applications or window dressing ("Christianity has a masculine feel"), and not the main pieces of furniture in the complementarian room (regarding the created and good differences between men and women and how those differences play out especially in church and home, both in terms of boundaries and opportunities for each). IOW: voices from your side can pick the ten most borderline things some complementarians have uttered as points of application and identify that with the whole, referring to it all as that "weird parochially American pro-patriarchy stuff." But this leaves most of us who identify as thick complementarians thinking, "Yeah, whatever. I don't know that I'd say that, and that's not the stuff I'm talking about. I'm talking about the big pieces of furniture in the room. Can we talk about that, and not just cherry pick the borderline quotes?" To put all this even more crisply: pointing to the "weird parochially American pro-patriarchy stuff" feels like a way to represent "my side" with the worst arguments (or not even arguments really) not the best. While doing this wins point with one's one side, it doesn't do much to persuade the other side.
3) On a related note, may I offer one more gentle correction? The growing trend of rebranding complementarianism as "patriarchy" feels mildly insulting, like me to referring to egalitarians as identitarians or theological liberals or something else that you felt (i) didn't fairly represent you and (ii) was pejorative. I say this not because I'm mad or upset; I'm simply trying to get you a window into how some of these arguments feel coming from my perceptive. Let's assume your biblical understanding is correct and mine is incorrect. Could it be that employing labels that most folk on my side rejects risks worsening the divide, not helping it? I respect you, and so I want to shoot straight with you.
All for now. I will do my best to be quiet now and let you have the last word, brother.
I think "patriarchal" is accurate. Joe Carter of TGC and Denny Burk have both spoken in favor of complementarians not hiding from the p-word label. And Scot McKnight has given evidence that egalitarians were the first to use words like "complementary" in describing our beliefs (as in the book, "Discovering Biblical Equality," whose subtitle is "Complementarity without Hierarchy").
Egalitarians believe that men and women are equal, but different, and that those differences do not merit any sort of hierarchical relationship, hence are "complementary."
"The other side" believes that men and women are different, and that in at least some cases, the relationship can only be hierarchical, and only a male can have the highest rank; the best description of that view is "patriarchy."
Perhaps we are sheltered from this bit in the UK. from the media I read it seems to be a main issue in some parts elsewhere in the world. But it is an issue for people who live comfortably and have the time to think about such things. When our (Christian sisters and brothers of all denominations and nationalities) efforts are spent preventing people (women) from speaking in church, writing books and bad mouthing them they are not spent helping our poor and oppressed friends. People, fellow Christians around the world cannot confess the love of Christ for fear of death, yet more of our friends cannot eat or drink clean water. The very western worry about keeping women out of the pulpit and being downright horrible to any that dare to speak is born of privilege and forgets its Christian roots. So many examples of women in prominent roles you already mention Mike, I don't need to. It's about time, in a world of inequality, the church focused on an outpouring of Christ's love from our hearts to those in need, poor, oppressed, blind ( you know the drill), pitching our tent with our homeless friends, our sisters who can't feed their children, our brothers being imprisoned for loving God. We build the kingdom through faith and love in Christ, not hatred of women preaching.
Is there any evidence that regularly attending a complimentarian church is a protective factor against domestic violence compared to regularly attending any other church? I was not able to see that claim supported in the linked article.
From what I can see gendered teaching poses a special risk when loosely applied but no special benefit when strictly applied. From this we cannot tell if the benefit comes from the gendered teaching or despite it.
I am writing a 3 book series on Restoring Mutual Ministries and Oneness in the NT Church, there are some good points by Michael F Bird. How do it get his permission to reference him - quote several partial; quotes against the Danver Statement. I do not see anything with his email - email address
On July 24, 2010, I stood up at a Conference in Orlando, FL and demanded an apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for their denigration of women through the Danvers Statement. Then I Fedexed the Demand for an Apology the following Monday to the president of CBMW. Al Mohler said in a tweet that we were "confused." It is time everyone stood up and demanded an apology from the group that came up with the Danvers Statement. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 came out of that same group who composed the Danvers Statement. It is that document, in conjuntion with the Danvers Statement, that keeps women under their control here in the 2021 century. Thank you for writing this. (p.s. You can read the Demand for an Apology and my take on the Danvers Statement in my book Dethroning Male Headship: 2nd Ed.)
I still remember when you subscribed to the anti-Semitic "Cultural Marxist" conspiracy theory! Another piece of this broader culture war that is ultimately reactionary and whose participants tend to view the 'Other' as supposedly engaging in some conspiracy against American capitalist exceptionalism.
Michael: I really want to be with you on your evaluation of Scripture, but there are few places that are unsettling. You summarily offer, in quoted form, that “I think Roman 16:1-16 and Galatians 3:28 provides a robust case for biblical egalitarianism and it is 1 Timoty 2:11-15 that is the odd man out here.”
But why does an egalitarian view have to toss aside 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (much less the reference to qualifications for overseer/elder in 1 Timothy 3 as a "husband of one wife," or more in the plain-texty sense of "a one-woman man") as the "odd man out?" Would not a more robust view of Scripture include ALL of Scripture, and not just those texts that fit within the favored hermeneutical paradigm, explaining away those texts that do not fit within the system?
Your point is well taken that some forms of complementarianism have made Junia into Junias, to avoid the implication of a woman being an apostle, equal to that Saint Paul. But not everyone on the complementarian side reads it this way. Andrew Wilson of London does a great job of this, arguing that perhaps Junia was an "apostle" as in the most basic sense of being a "sent out one," like a church planter or missionary. This would not make Junia into a local church presbyter, in the 1 Timothy sense, but she would be far from serving in some menial position. Female church planters have done marvelous things for the kingdom for centuries. How many complementarians would really object to that?
Colossians 3:16 offer some help here, as the "teaching" in that passage is perhaps related to the "teaching" of 1 Timothy 2:12. However, the difference is the context. Colossians never mentions presbyters. Timothy does mention elders and overseers. Andrew Wilson makes the case that there is a difference between two kinds of teaching. There is "little T" teaching, as in Colossians 3:16, that all believers are encouraged to engage with, both men and women. Yet there is "big T" teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12, which addresses a kind of spiritual authority associated exclusively with elders/ overseers; and therefore, only qualified men (as Aimee Byrd might say).
Egalitarians, too, in certain extremes have done all sorts of crazy things with Galatians 3:28, such as, "nor is there male or female" has been recently taken to mean a prooftext for transgender ideology by some. The type of exegetical gymnastics around 1 Timothy 2 and 3, performed by more than a few egalitarians, offering vastly different, and indeed, contradictory proposals, is simply mind-boggling. Were the women in 1 Timothy 2:12 merely "usurpers," or were they false teachers promoting a mishmash of Dionysian syncretism (perhaps as argued by N.T. Wright??), or 2nd-century Gnosticism (that somehow time travelled back into the 1st-century) that needed to be silenced (see Kroeger), or were they simply women whom Paul encouraged to play along with the patriarchal system, for the time being, and not make any waves (see Witherington), or were they simply wives of husbands (see Cynthia Westfall)? It all depends on which egalitarian scholar you appeal to. But it is still a jumbled mess.
So, I agree that complementarians have a lot to do get their house in order. Books like Aimee Byrd's are doing much to rectify this. But egalitarians have a lot to get squared away on their side of the discussion. Would you not agree?
I take Michael's comments about 1 Tim. 2 to mean that it is really the ONLY passage that directly challenges placing women in certain leadership roles, and whether or not it really does so depends on how it is translated, and on presuppositions about how Scripture is to be interpreted and applied across cultures. Regardless of the *reason* Paul wrote what he wrote in 1 Tim. 2, why should all other NT passages be filtered through that single lens?
Payne has probably given the most detailed readily-available treatment of the translation issues in 1 Tim. 2 and 3. Bartlett has recently done a treatment that draws from Payne but is more concise and IMO more readable; that suggests an interesting reason for Paul's choice of "authentein"; and that treats 1 Tim. 3 as building on 1 Tim. 2, rather than a completely new topic.
Hi, Norrin. Quick question: What is your Bartlett source? I have not seen that, and would be curious to find it.....
Big picture: I would agree with you that 1 Timothy 2 should not be the lens by which we read all of the other NT passages that touch on relations between men and women in the church. Granted, there are complementarians out there who DO believe this, or some similar nonsense that women in general are more easily deceived than men, and that therefore women are theologically defective. But not everyone buys into all of that. For all of Aimee Byrd's critique of "complementarianism", she is still effectively a "complementarian," in that she affirms that only qualified men are to serve as local church elders. Perhaps we need a new word to distinguish between hardcore "complementarianism," e.g.. John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, etc. and a kindler, more gentle version, e.g. Aimee Byrd, Wendy Alsup, Rachel Green Miller, Andrew Wilson, etc.
Local church elders only represent a small fraction of all of the opportunities for leadership in Christian ministry; e.g. parachurch workers, ministry directors, evangelists, church planters, theologians, Sunday school teachers, etc. , etc., etc. The pastoral letters are the ONLY place in Paul's corpus that addresses overseers/elders in the church (with the brief exception of Philippians 1:1). Paul never brings up the question of elders in Romans 16 or Colossians 3, nor in any of the other relevant passages.
I'll just get on a soap box for one moment: For some reason, we tend to elevate elders in the local church as THE most important position in the Christian church.... but they aren't. That view really demeans the countless more deacons, parachurch workers, youth directors, etc. who lead just as much in Christian ministry. Everyone has a role to play in spreading the Gospel.... end of soap box.
I think what really irritates folks the most is the supposed "hierarchy" that elevates men over women. I just do not think that is what Paul's point is in 1 Timothy. It is more about acknowledging that while men and women are indeed equal in Christ, they are not interchangeable in nature. Believe me, I really *want* to believe that what Payne is saying about "authentein" is true, or that we can brush aside 1 Timothy 2 as "cultural", as Michael argues. The problem is, that if I am really honest, the reasoning involved is just not very convincing. Wanting to believe something is true is not the same thing as it actually being true. We need evidence for establishing that. And some people evaluate the evidence differently than others. Hence, the never ending debate we have on this topic.
1) Andrew Bartlett, "Men and Women in Christ." It's very good, very well organized. And it has the virtue of dealing with a few passages that are often ignored, including Peter's version of "household codes."
2) Honestly, I'm annoyed that people who are, ultimately, patriarchalists, get away with using the "complementarian" label at all. Egalitarians are complementarians. We believe men and women are different, but not in a way that precludes one or the other from certain leadership roles. The second book I ever read on the topic was "Discovering Biblical Equality," the subtitle of which is "Complementarity without Hierarchy." Back in the days of his Patheos blog, Scot McKnight gave evidence that egalitarians were likely the first to use "complementary" and similar terms, and patriarchalists grabbed the lingo to sound less off-putting.
3) That's all interesting, but it misses a few points. One, the most prominent complementarians would use the alleged "plain reading" of 1 Tim. 2 to rule out many of those roles. Two, I'm not aware of any place, in the PEs or elsewhere in the NT, that prohibits women from being elders-overseers/supervisors-shepherds. Three, there is credible evidence that Rom. 16 presents Junia as an apostle, which would most likely be in the "elder" category.
4) Egalitarians do not believe men and women are interchangeable in nature. But we do believe that if "x" roles are open to men, and "x-1" roles are open to women, then there is a hierarchy with men at the top. And it's not a matter of "wanting" something to be true. I'm still a bit more comfortable with male teachers. But I see Scripture teaching equality.
One more thought, Norrin, as I was reading back through some of the comments in this post. Michael raised an excellent point: "I've got female friends who have converted to RCC and Greek Orthodox who tell me that (ironically) they have had more opportunities to preach and teach in their churches with a male-only priesthood than in their former evangelical churches."
I would wholeheartedly concur with this. I find that that there are women active in the RCC and various Eastern Orthodox churches, in all types of leadership, more so that one what you find in certain segments of Protestant evangelicalism, the hardcore complementarian approach I mentioned above. But to respond to hardcore complementarianism with full-on egalitarianism will only make the reconciliation of the churches, across Christendom, even more difficult than it already is. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox churches will never have women serving as presbyters, as they have located that practice in the early church. So, if Protestant evangelicals are going to insist on having women as presbyters, then that will only deepen the divide between different branches of the Christian church universal. Then, forever and ever more, we will continue to have complementarian and egalitarian churches on different sides of the street.... and the unbelieving world will simply conclude that these Christians are terribly messed up. If that is what we really want, then that is the situation we will get.
Honestly, I don't care about any of that. I care about making the best effort to follow what Scripture teaches. IMO, RCC and EOC are *probably* genuine Christian belief systems, but their style imports *way* too much from the trappings of the Obsolete Covenant. If, as I believe, full equality of the sexes is part and parcel of the New Covenant and concomitant new creation in Christ, then we should strive to fulfill that intent, not stifle it for the sake of appearances.
Thank you, Norrin, for your candid response. Well, that probably explains a lot of where we differ. You may not care about any of that, but when I read Ephesians 4 speaking of "one faith, one baptism, one body, etc.", it really becomes difficult for me to accept denominationalism as in any way pleasing to God. I understand that we have to live with it, but it is really difficult for me to believe that God is happy about it. Verse 3 is especially convicting to me, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."
Your comment about "not stifle it for the sake of appearances" probably suggests where we differ with respect to the sacraments of the church. That's a whole big topic in and of itself, but in short, I would suggest that the concept of having qualified men as elders is a sacramental expression that shows in a concrete manner that male and female are not interchangeable, much like how baptism sacramentally expresses how male and female are equal, in God's sight. Unfortunately, what made me rethink my commitment to egalitarianism (a view that I held for close to 20 years) was that I was not seeing any substantial sacramental expression of this non-interchangeability between male and female in egalitarian churches. It is one thing to say that we as Christian believe in it. But it is quite another thing to find a sacramental expression for it.
The other thing that made me question egalitarianism is I went to one of the leading evangelical egalitarian seminaries in the world, and one of their top scholars confided with me that the exegetical case for the egalitarian reading of the Pastoral Letters was actually pretty weak. That really stunned me. So, when I went digging for myself, years later, I regretfully had to agree with him.
As for the hierarchy "x" vs. "x-1" roles distinction, I get the egalitarian complaint, as I wrestled with this for years, but it does not need to be seen that way. For if you do have only qualified men serving as elders, that should in no way justify an elder being a jerk. If someone is being a jerk, then replace that unqualified man with a qualified one. For if an elder is not encouraging the women in their local church to flourish, then that man is not qualified to be an elder, IMHO.
I would be curious, Norrin, to know if you know how egalitarian churches can do better to celebrate not just the equality of male and female, BUT also the non-interchangeable nature of male and female?
1) I understand factionalism is problematic. But for me, trying to follow one's conscience and convictions is important. Reading everything through the lens of Eph. 4:3 is just as bad as reading everything through the lens of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 -- especially when v. 13 of the same context talks about unity of "the faith," which IMO includes teachings and practices. If different persons or groups sincerely differ in their understandings of what those teachings and practices are, there can't be unity until the Lord sorts it out.
2) I'm a Pentecostal/Charismatic fundygelical, so I have a low view of sacramentalism. Under the Obsolete Covenant, Israel collectively constituted a "kingdom of priests" (as cited in Rev. 1:6 and 5:10) which (per notes in the NET) could also be translated "kings, that is, priests" or "royal priesthood" (as quoted in 1 Pet. 2:9); they were all kings, and they were all priests, in relation to the world at large. But within the nation, there was still a kingly line -- only males, and only from the line of David. And there was still a priestly line -- only males, and only from the tribe of Levi. Under the New Covenant in Christ, we are all, men and women alike, kings and priests; there is no other priesthood. For me, as far as ministerial functions are concerned, men and women *are* interchangeable. They may possibly think differently and approach things differently, but their ministry is based on the call and gifting of the Spirit, not on gonads, muscle mass, or hormones.
3) It's interesting how opposite our trajectories have been. For about my first 20 years after being born again in 1980, I was a complementarian. One of the biggest things that caused me to start reconsidering was that we were usually taught a fairly literal approach to understanding Scripture, and yet by that approach NO common English translation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 would have allowed Priscilla to even participate in teaching Apollos, and NO common English translation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 would have allowed 1 Cor. 11:5. It was and is obvious that whatever those verses mean, they do NOT mean what they APPEAR to mean.
4) I'm sorry, but your "being a jerk" argument is totally irrelevant. If fewer roles are permissible to women, no matter how nobly the men are acting, the women are still being limited. The group that has few options has de facto lower status. N.b., this is not the basis for my argument. *IF* Scripture teaches men should have more options, so be it. God is not obliged to be "fair." But I don't believe Scripture does teach it.
5) I don't know why there needs to be a concern about "celebrating" those differences. I've heard some people whine that church seems too "feminine," and that's why fewer men than women attend. I find such speculations silly.
Very well said. My wife and I are probably still somewhere on the spectrum of the husband being endowed with some manner of call to stewarding the spiritual well-being of the family and see that in the church too for elders, but certainly not to restricting women from teaching and stewarding their spiritual gifts for the maturation of the body (Eph 4). I'm very concerned with the abuse and idolatry of complementarian hegemony and appreciate voices like you and Beth Allison Barr and Scot McKnight etc. Thank you!
You say:
"But let me ask you this:
Can you make a biblical case for complementarianism apart from the American culture wars? Is your complementarianism with all its lists of dos and don’ts comprehensible in a rural village in Mongolia or in the slums of Nairobi?"
This literally stopped me in my tracks (or since I was sitting down, stopped my eyes from reading further.)
It was living in Outer Mongolia (we were there more than a decade) that I began to question so much of what I took to be "truth". I began to realize how much of the way I read and understood the Bible was through my American Evangelical lens. Now after almost 25 years outside our "home" culture, having lived in three different cultures other than my own, I realize how much our "lenses" color our interpretations/applications of scripture.
Thank you for the challenge to really look at and understand why Christian communities might interpret things the way they do....our cultures definitely influence our interpretations of scripture. You have to look no further than Bible translations to see this....ESV vs NLT vs NASB etc. What is emphasized? What was the culture like in the days when the original scriptures were written? What choice of words were used? What was added/left out/mis-written from the ancient manuscripts that have been handed down when review/analysis has been done to insure there are no errors?
We need to remember that none of us have all the answers and we should always be growing in our knowledge...and remember we filter everything through our own lens...I pray we would all learn to filter through God's lens.
Hey Michael. May I register 2 challenges, brother?
(1) To say complementarianism is “culture war” presumes it breaks with what’s come before. Demonstrating discontinuity with the previous theological consensus would make your point, as in, “Churches BEFORE the 1950s were mostly egalitarian. Then culture war happened and they began to believe ‘X.’” Okay, that would give legs to your argument. Whereas, if the historical record is: “Before 1950s most churches believed X. And now CBMW also propounds X,” then it’s harder to sustain the case that culture war CAUSED complementarianism. I sincerely don’t know: has much been written demonstrating significant discontinuity?
(2) But now suppose discontinuity. Let me offer an alternative historical reconstruction and then offer my second challenge. Suppose some theological development did occur with how 1980s CBMW complementarians talked about men and women. I’m willing to grant the some expressions or applications of CBMW complementarianism have been both wrong and culturally located. But I’m also inclined to say: doesn’t good theological development typically work that way? With imperfect first attempts followed by better and better second and third attempts? We both know theological development occurs in response to challenges, eg Nicaea to Arianism, Luther to indulgences, 9Marks to virtual church 😉. Luther is good. Calvin is even better. That’s how I view complementarianism beginning in the 1980s. First wave 1980s CBMW complementarianism offered good responses to external (2nd wave feminism) and internal (egalitarianism in biblical studies departments and churches) challenges. It helped the church more carefully tackle this previously uncontested area. Now, the first wave of complementarian writers or their popularizing pastors didn’t get everything right in the 1980s, just like Luther didn’t get everything right. But the general thrust of that movement was in a more biblical direction, yes, in response to internal and external forces pushing against the Bible.
Yet never mind my own historical reconstruction. That’s not actually my second challenge. Here’s my challenge: both your explanation (comp is culture war) and mine (comp is good doctrinal development) are question-begging. They assume the rightness of our biblical perspectives. If an egalitarian read of Scripture is right, then, yeah, culture war. If a comp read is right, yeah, good doctrinal development. In short, the REAL conversation is and will forever remain an exegetical one: what does the Bible say?
Bottom line: to sustain the “culture war is the cause of complementarianism” argument, which has certainly grown in currency of late, one needs to (i) demonstrate discontinuity with the past; and (ii) demonstrate that it really WAS NOT their reading of the Bible which caused John Piper and Tom Schreiner and Wayne Grudem and others to come to complementarian conclusions. It really WAS the culture war. And, again, I don’t know how you demonstrate that without presuming that your explanations of the Bible are right.
I offer these challenges in a spirit of friendship and affection, brother.
Hi Jonathan, thanks for your respectful disagreement.
To respond to your points:
(1) The Danvers statement is top and tailed by references to culture, which shows that by its OWN WORDS, it a response to culture. It is more anti-feminism than retrieving a tradition. The proof of that is that so much of the teachings of complementarian leaders are based on patriarchal nuclear-family consumerist suburban America: "Christianity has a masculine feel" and "Women cannot be police officers." That is neither biblical nor tradition - it's weird parochially American pro-patriarchy stuff. If your do's and don'ts for male and female roles have no precedent in the great tradition and no traction in the global church, then it is your own totes cray cray innovation.
(2) Even if some kind of patriarchy was the norm for most of Christian history - though I doubt it is apostolic - I don't think the CBMW version is the same as Christian history. Even the patristic period and middle ages had prominent female leaders, mystics, martyrs, and missionaries who were venerated and encouraged. I've got female friends who have converted to RCC and Greek Orthodox who tell me that (ironically) they have had more opportunities to preach and teach in their churches with a male-only priesthood than in their former evangelical churches. If you want to infer a continuity of patriarchy, sure, there is some, but the discontinuities will show that American complementarianism is indubitably more James Dobson than Gregory the Great! Or, let me say, I sincerely doubt that John Chrysostom or Macrina the Younger would have written an endorsement for Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
(3) Our relationship with tradition on the church and women requires discernment. I for one don't want to reiterate Jerome's view that women are the root of all evil, but I find commendable Thomas Cranmer's view of protecting wives from domestic violence. We have to be conscious of retrieving "the faith delivered once and for all" (Jude) as well as the prospect of the "improvement in our religion" (Vincent of Lerins).
Warmly yours in Christ bro.
Mike
Is "Women cannot be police officers" an actual quote of a real, live complementarian?
Mike,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I sincerely expected your reply would be intelligent, and you didn't disappoint. Even in disagreement I appreciate that about you. I certainly agree with your third point. May I offer one more push back by responding to the first two points? I'll then do my best to leave it at that, happy for you to take the final word.
To your first point: I don't deny that CMBW is responding to culture. Indeed, that was my point when I said good theology is often a response to momentary challenges inside and outside the church. Yet the mere fact that something is a response doesn't make it untrue. It's lack of fidelity to the Bible does. Nicaea was a response. The 95 theses were a response. Biblical teaching in general--in the pulpit on Sunday and in books of theology--takes the Bible and tries to use the Bible to respond to the public and private sins and heresies of the moment. That's not all it does. It also tries to set the agenda. But it also responds. In short, there's a difference between saying, "This theology offers a response to momentary cultural needs," and, "This theology is entirely or mostly a cultural artifact, manufactured whole cloth to suit those theologian's political purposes." As I understand it, you and others have been making the latter charge, while I'd offer the former rendering of the last half decade. Further, I'm saying that both of our claims rely on assumptions about what the biblical text really does say. And I'm also saying that, in order to sustain the latter charge, I think you need to show the historical receipts: "Before, theology 'X' was the consensus--see Augustine here, Calvin here, and Bavinck here (or whomever); now CBMW says "Y." Which brings me to...
2) To respond to elements in both of your first two points. It feels like you're relying on vague generalities regarding the past ("Even the patristic period and middle ages had prominent female leaders, mystics, martyrs, and missionaries who were venerated and encouraged") and getting specific only when pointing to the present. Plus, the present examples you give ("Christianity has a masculine feel"; "women cannot be police officers") feel cherry-picked. If I, too, were to speak in vague generalities, I'd say that complementarians today also hold up plenty of prominent female voices. You may not agree with those female voices, but there are plenty: Elizabeth Elliot, Jani Erickson Tada, Trillia Newbell, Martha Peace, Jen Wilkins, Abigail Dodds, Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong (speaking of SBC lol), Susan Hunt, Mary Cassian, Keri Folmar, Melissa Kruger, Megan Hill, Jackie Hill Perry, Sarah Zylstra, Claire Smith, Rosaria Butterfield, and on and on I could go. So, again, I think what would prove convincing to people like me are actual historical receipts: "Augustine said THIS. Calvin said THIS. Bavinck said THIS" and offer such a pile of them that it becomes clear, "Oh, yeah, the consensus WAS different." But none of these recent books do this. They merely make the assertion: "complementarianism is culture war." And people who are already looking for ammo against complementarianism quickly say, "Yep, it's culture war." The thing is, nothing has been done to actually demonstrate a change of consensus between past and present, on which the whole point hangs. With regard to your specific charges against the present: to a thick complementarian like me, they feel cherry-picked and non-representative of the heart of what complementarianism promotes. They feel like you're talking about one or two writer's debatable applications or window dressing ("Christianity has a masculine feel"), and not the main pieces of furniture in the complementarian room (regarding the created and good differences between men and women and how those differences play out especially in church and home, both in terms of boundaries and opportunities for each). IOW: voices from your side can pick the ten most borderline things some complementarians have uttered as points of application and identify that with the whole, referring to it all as that "weird parochially American pro-patriarchy stuff." But this leaves most of us who identify as thick complementarians thinking, "Yeah, whatever. I don't know that I'd say that, and that's not the stuff I'm talking about. I'm talking about the big pieces of furniture in the room. Can we talk about that, and not just cherry pick the borderline quotes?" To put all this even more crisply: pointing to the "weird parochially American pro-patriarchy stuff" feels like a way to represent "my side" with the worst arguments (or not even arguments really) not the best. While doing this wins point with one's one side, it doesn't do much to persuade the other side.
3) On a related note, may I offer one more gentle correction? The growing trend of rebranding complementarianism as "patriarchy" feels mildly insulting, like me to referring to egalitarians as identitarians or theological liberals or something else that you felt (i) didn't fairly represent you and (ii) was pejorative. I say this not because I'm mad or upset; I'm simply trying to get you a window into how some of these arguments feel coming from my perceptive. Let's assume your biblical understanding is correct and mine is incorrect. Could it be that employing labels that most folk on my side rejects risks worsening the divide, not helping it? I respect you, and so I want to shoot straight with you.
All for now. I will do my best to be quiet now and let you have the last word, brother.
I think "patriarchal" is accurate. Joe Carter of TGC and Denny Burk have both spoken in favor of complementarians not hiding from the p-word label. And Scot McKnight has given evidence that egalitarians were the first to use words like "complementary" in describing our beliefs (as in the book, "Discovering Biblical Equality," whose subtitle is "Complementarity without Hierarchy").
Egalitarians believe that men and women are equal, but different, and that those differences do not merit any sort of hierarchical relationship, hence are "complementary."
"The other side" believes that men and women are different, and that in at least some cases, the relationship can only be hierarchical, and only a male can have the highest rank; the best description of that view is "patriarchy."
Perhaps we are sheltered from this bit in the UK. from the media I read it seems to be a main issue in some parts elsewhere in the world. But it is an issue for people who live comfortably and have the time to think about such things. When our (Christian sisters and brothers of all denominations and nationalities) efforts are spent preventing people (women) from speaking in church, writing books and bad mouthing them they are not spent helping our poor and oppressed friends. People, fellow Christians around the world cannot confess the love of Christ for fear of death, yet more of our friends cannot eat or drink clean water. The very western worry about keeping women out of the pulpit and being downright horrible to any that dare to speak is born of privilege and forgets its Christian roots. So many examples of women in prominent roles you already mention Mike, I don't need to. It's about time, in a world of inequality, the church focused on an outpouring of Christ's love from our hearts to those in need, poor, oppressed, blind ( you know the drill), pitching our tent with our homeless friends, our sisters who can't feed their children, our brothers being imprisoned for loving God. We build the kingdom through faith and love in Christ, not hatred of women preaching.
I'll try put this on the twitter feed, where it won't go down as well..
Is there any evidence that regularly attending a complimentarian church is a protective factor against domestic violence compared to regularly attending any other church? I was not able to see that claim supported in the linked article.
From what I can see gendered teaching poses a special risk when loosely applied but no special benefit when strictly applied. From this we cannot tell if the benefit comes from the gendered teaching or despite it.
I am writing a 3 book series on Restoring Mutual Ministries and Oneness in the NT Church, there are some good points by Michael F Bird. How do it get his permission to reference him - quote several partial; quotes against the Danver Statement. I do not see anything with his email - email address
On July 24, 2010, I stood up at a Conference in Orlando, FL and demanded an apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for their denigration of women through the Danvers Statement. Then I Fedexed the Demand for an Apology the following Monday to the president of CBMW. Al Mohler said in a tweet that we were "confused." It is time everyone stood up and demanded an apology from the group that came up with the Danvers Statement. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 came out of that same group who composed the Danvers Statement. It is that document, in conjuntion with the Danvers Statement, that keeps women under their control here in the 2021 century. Thank you for writing this. (p.s. You can read the Demand for an Apology and my take on the Danvers Statement in my book Dethroning Male Headship: 2nd Ed.)
a feminist Marxist gender-neutral dystopia (i.e., Canada). Oops.... which planet do you live on?
I still remember when you subscribed to the anti-Semitic "Cultural Marxist" conspiracy theory! Another piece of this broader culture war that is ultimately reactionary and whose participants tend to view the 'Other' as supposedly engaging in some conspiracy against American capitalist exceptionalism.
Michael: I really want to be with you on your evaluation of Scripture, but there are few places that are unsettling. You summarily offer, in quoted form, that “I think Roman 16:1-16 and Galatians 3:28 provides a robust case for biblical egalitarianism and it is 1 Timoty 2:11-15 that is the odd man out here.”
But why does an egalitarian view have to toss aside 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (much less the reference to qualifications for overseer/elder in 1 Timothy 3 as a "husband of one wife," or more in the plain-texty sense of "a one-woman man") as the "odd man out?" Would not a more robust view of Scripture include ALL of Scripture, and not just those texts that fit within the favored hermeneutical paradigm, explaining away those texts that do not fit within the system?
Your point is well taken that some forms of complementarianism have made Junia into Junias, to avoid the implication of a woman being an apostle, equal to that Saint Paul. But not everyone on the complementarian side reads it this way. Andrew Wilson of London does a great job of this, arguing that perhaps Junia was an "apostle" as in the most basic sense of being a "sent out one," like a church planter or missionary. This would not make Junia into a local church presbyter, in the 1 Timothy sense, but she would be far from serving in some menial position. Female church planters have done marvelous things for the kingdom for centuries. How many complementarians would really object to that?
Colossians 3:16 offer some help here, as the "teaching" in that passage is perhaps related to the "teaching" of 1 Timothy 2:12. However, the difference is the context. Colossians never mentions presbyters. Timothy does mention elders and overseers. Andrew Wilson makes the case that there is a difference between two kinds of teaching. There is "little T" teaching, as in Colossians 3:16, that all believers are encouraged to engage with, both men and women. Yet there is "big T" teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12, which addresses a kind of spiritual authority associated exclusively with elders/ overseers; and therefore, only qualified men (as Aimee Byrd might say).
Egalitarians, too, in certain extremes have done all sorts of crazy things with Galatians 3:28, such as, "nor is there male or female" has been recently taken to mean a prooftext for transgender ideology by some. The type of exegetical gymnastics around 1 Timothy 2 and 3, performed by more than a few egalitarians, offering vastly different, and indeed, contradictory proposals, is simply mind-boggling. Were the women in 1 Timothy 2:12 merely "usurpers," or were they false teachers promoting a mishmash of Dionysian syncretism (perhaps as argued by N.T. Wright??), or 2nd-century Gnosticism (that somehow time travelled back into the 1st-century) that needed to be silenced (see Kroeger), or were they simply women whom Paul encouraged to play along with the patriarchal system, for the time being, and not make any waves (see Witherington), or were they simply wives of husbands (see Cynthia Westfall)? It all depends on which egalitarian scholar you appeal to. But it is still a jumbled mess.
So, I agree that complementarians have a lot to do get their house in order. Books like Aimee Byrd's are doing much to rectify this. But egalitarians have a lot to get squared away on their side of the discussion. Would you not agree?
I take Michael's comments about 1 Tim. 2 to mean that it is really the ONLY passage that directly challenges placing women in certain leadership roles, and whether or not it really does so depends on how it is translated, and on presuppositions about how Scripture is to be interpreted and applied across cultures. Regardless of the *reason* Paul wrote what he wrote in 1 Tim. 2, why should all other NT passages be filtered through that single lens?
Payne has probably given the most detailed readily-available treatment of the translation issues in 1 Tim. 2 and 3. Bartlett has recently done a treatment that draws from Payne but is more concise and IMO more readable; that suggests an interesting reason for Paul's choice of "authentein"; and that treats 1 Tim. 3 as building on 1 Tim. 2, rather than a completely new topic.
Hi, Norrin. Quick question: What is your Bartlett source? I have not seen that, and would be curious to find it.....
Big picture: I would agree with you that 1 Timothy 2 should not be the lens by which we read all of the other NT passages that touch on relations between men and women in the church. Granted, there are complementarians out there who DO believe this, or some similar nonsense that women in general are more easily deceived than men, and that therefore women are theologically defective. But not everyone buys into all of that. For all of Aimee Byrd's critique of "complementarianism", she is still effectively a "complementarian," in that she affirms that only qualified men are to serve as local church elders. Perhaps we need a new word to distinguish between hardcore "complementarianism," e.g.. John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, etc. and a kindler, more gentle version, e.g. Aimee Byrd, Wendy Alsup, Rachel Green Miller, Andrew Wilson, etc.
Local church elders only represent a small fraction of all of the opportunities for leadership in Christian ministry; e.g. parachurch workers, ministry directors, evangelists, church planters, theologians, Sunday school teachers, etc. , etc., etc. The pastoral letters are the ONLY place in Paul's corpus that addresses overseers/elders in the church (with the brief exception of Philippians 1:1). Paul never brings up the question of elders in Romans 16 or Colossians 3, nor in any of the other relevant passages.
I'll just get on a soap box for one moment: For some reason, we tend to elevate elders in the local church as THE most important position in the Christian church.... but they aren't. That view really demeans the countless more deacons, parachurch workers, youth directors, etc. who lead just as much in Christian ministry. Everyone has a role to play in spreading the Gospel.... end of soap box.
I think what really irritates folks the most is the supposed "hierarchy" that elevates men over women. I just do not think that is what Paul's point is in 1 Timothy. It is more about acknowledging that while men and women are indeed equal in Christ, they are not interchangeable in nature. Believe me, I really *want* to believe that what Payne is saying about "authentein" is true, or that we can brush aside 1 Timothy 2 as "cultural", as Michael argues. The problem is, that if I am really honest, the reasoning involved is just not very convincing. Wanting to believe something is true is not the same thing as it actually being true. We need evidence for establishing that. And some people evaluate the evidence differently than others. Hence, the never ending debate we have on this topic.
1) Andrew Bartlett, "Men and Women in Christ." It's very good, very well organized. And it has the virtue of dealing with a few passages that are often ignored, including Peter's version of "household codes."
2) Honestly, I'm annoyed that people who are, ultimately, patriarchalists, get away with using the "complementarian" label at all. Egalitarians are complementarians. We believe men and women are different, but not in a way that precludes one or the other from certain leadership roles. The second book I ever read on the topic was "Discovering Biblical Equality," the subtitle of which is "Complementarity without Hierarchy." Back in the days of his Patheos blog, Scot McKnight gave evidence that egalitarians were likely the first to use "complementary" and similar terms, and patriarchalists grabbed the lingo to sound less off-putting.
3) That's all interesting, but it misses a few points. One, the most prominent complementarians would use the alleged "plain reading" of 1 Tim. 2 to rule out many of those roles. Two, I'm not aware of any place, in the PEs or elsewhere in the NT, that prohibits women from being elders-overseers/supervisors-shepherds. Three, there is credible evidence that Rom. 16 presents Junia as an apostle, which would most likely be in the "elder" category.
4) Egalitarians do not believe men and women are interchangeable in nature. But we do believe that if "x" roles are open to men, and "x-1" roles are open to women, then there is a hierarchy with men at the top. And it's not a matter of "wanting" something to be true. I'm still a bit more comfortable with male teachers. But I see Scripture teaching equality.
One more thought, Norrin, as I was reading back through some of the comments in this post. Michael raised an excellent point: "I've got female friends who have converted to RCC and Greek Orthodox who tell me that (ironically) they have had more opportunities to preach and teach in their churches with a male-only priesthood than in their former evangelical churches."
I would wholeheartedly concur with this. I find that that there are women active in the RCC and various Eastern Orthodox churches, in all types of leadership, more so that one what you find in certain segments of Protestant evangelicalism, the hardcore complementarian approach I mentioned above. But to respond to hardcore complementarianism with full-on egalitarianism will only make the reconciliation of the churches, across Christendom, even more difficult than it already is. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox churches will never have women serving as presbyters, as they have located that practice in the early church. So, if Protestant evangelicals are going to insist on having women as presbyters, then that will only deepen the divide between different branches of the Christian church universal. Then, forever and ever more, we will continue to have complementarian and egalitarian churches on different sides of the street.... and the unbelieving world will simply conclude that these Christians are terribly messed up. If that is what we really want, then that is the situation we will get.
Honestly, I don't care about any of that. I care about making the best effort to follow what Scripture teaches. IMO, RCC and EOC are *probably* genuine Christian belief systems, but their style imports *way* too much from the trappings of the Obsolete Covenant. If, as I believe, full equality of the sexes is part and parcel of the New Covenant and concomitant new creation in Christ, then we should strive to fulfill that intent, not stifle it for the sake of appearances.
Thank you, Norrin, for your candid response. Well, that probably explains a lot of where we differ. You may not care about any of that, but when I read Ephesians 4 speaking of "one faith, one baptism, one body, etc.", it really becomes difficult for me to accept denominationalism as in any way pleasing to God. I understand that we have to live with it, but it is really difficult for me to believe that God is happy about it. Verse 3 is especially convicting to me, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."
Your comment about "not stifle it for the sake of appearances" probably suggests where we differ with respect to the sacraments of the church. That's a whole big topic in and of itself, but in short, I would suggest that the concept of having qualified men as elders is a sacramental expression that shows in a concrete manner that male and female are not interchangeable, much like how baptism sacramentally expresses how male and female are equal, in God's sight. Unfortunately, what made me rethink my commitment to egalitarianism (a view that I held for close to 20 years) was that I was not seeing any substantial sacramental expression of this non-interchangeability between male and female in egalitarian churches. It is one thing to say that we as Christian believe in it. But it is quite another thing to find a sacramental expression for it.
The other thing that made me question egalitarianism is I went to one of the leading evangelical egalitarian seminaries in the world, and one of their top scholars confided with me that the exegetical case for the egalitarian reading of the Pastoral Letters was actually pretty weak. That really stunned me. So, when I went digging for myself, years later, I regretfully had to agree with him.
As for the hierarchy "x" vs. "x-1" roles distinction, I get the egalitarian complaint, as I wrestled with this for years, but it does not need to be seen that way. For if you do have only qualified men serving as elders, that should in no way justify an elder being a jerk. If someone is being a jerk, then replace that unqualified man with a qualified one. For if an elder is not encouraging the women in their local church to flourish, then that man is not qualified to be an elder, IMHO.
I would be curious, Norrin, to know if you know how egalitarian churches can do better to celebrate not just the equality of male and female, BUT also the non-interchangeable nature of male and female?
1) I understand factionalism is problematic. But for me, trying to follow one's conscience and convictions is important. Reading everything through the lens of Eph. 4:3 is just as bad as reading everything through the lens of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 -- especially when v. 13 of the same context talks about unity of "the faith," which IMO includes teachings and practices. If different persons or groups sincerely differ in their understandings of what those teachings and practices are, there can't be unity until the Lord sorts it out.
2) I'm a Pentecostal/Charismatic fundygelical, so I have a low view of sacramentalism. Under the Obsolete Covenant, Israel collectively constituted a "kingdom of priests" (as cited in Rev. 1:6 and 5:10) which (per notes in the NET) could also be translated "kings, that is, priests" or "royal priesthood" (as quoted in 1 Pet. 2:9); they were all kings, and they were all priests, in relation to the world at large. But within the nation, there was still a kingly line -- only males, and only from the line of David. And there was still a priestly line -- only males, and only from the tribe of Levi. Under the New Covenant in Christ, we are all, men and women alike, kings and priests; there is no other priesthood. For me, as far as ministerial functions are concerned, men and women *are* interchangeable. They may possibly think differently and approach things differently, but their ministry is based on the call and gifting of the Spirit, not on gonads, muscle mass, or hormones.
3) It's interesting how opposite our trajectories have been. For about my first 20 years after being born again in 1980, I was a complementarian. One of the biggest things that caused me to start reconsidering was that we were usually taught a fairly literal approach to understanding Scripture, and yet by that approach NO common English translation of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 would have allowed Priscilla to even participate in teaching Apollos, and NO common English translation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 would have allowed 1 Cor. 11:5. It was and is obvious that whatever those verses mean, they do NOT mean what they APPEAR to mean.
4) I'm sorry, but your "being a jerk" argument is totally irrelevant. If fewer roles are permissible to women, no matter how nobly the men are acting, the women are still being limited. The group that has few options has de facto lower status. N.b., this is not the basis for my argument. *IF* Scripture teaches men should have more options, so be it. God is not obliged to be "fair." But I don't believe Scripture does teach it.
5) I don't know why there needs to be a concern about "celebrating" those differences. I've heard some people whine that church seems too "feminine," and that's why fewer men than women attend. I find such speculations silly.
Very well said. My wife and I are probably still somewhere on the spectrum of the husband being endowed with some manner of call to stewarding the spiritual well-being of the family and see that in the church too for elders, but certainly not to restricting women from teaching and stewarding their spiritual gifts for the maturation of the body (Eph 4). I'm very concerned with the abuse and idolatry of complementarian hegemony and appreciate voices like you and Beth Allison Barr and Scot McKnight etc. Thank you!
Good analysis
I agree with much of your analysis. I would also venture to suggest that much of it applies to the current debate over 'religious freedom'. Angus