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.
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?
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.
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.)
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?
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