The argument from "is" to "ought" reminds me of one line from the Anglican liturgy:
"As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be / World without end. Amen."
Of course that's theologically suspect - Christians hold that the world had a beginning, isn't in the condition God intended, and will come to an end. (Many scientists would agree on the first and third points. Not all, of course.)
If some like KDY want to rehabilitate the term patriarchy, perhaps there is reason to switch to an adjacent term with all of it’s historical and theological baggage: popery.
Good video and good points. I'm in a little different place (I'm not egalitarian currently defined), but I'm certainly not where Kevin is. (It seems hard core complementarianism goes with hard core TULIP. Maybe that's just my perspective.)
I have to say first of all I don't like the categorical words of complementarian and egalitarian. They seem to carry presuppositions of total male authority in the first case and flat equality in the second. There may be nuances in people's thinking, but those presuppositions seem to dominate.
I am more at a "gender team" perspective, functioning with "realization of biological difference and also each person's unique giftings." But there is no one word for that. Let's create one.
Another semantical issue I have is separating sex and gender. That was never the case until the 1950's. I think it's a mistake. They are best as synonyms. Allowing them to be different, in light of how they have always been previously understood, opens the door to dysphoria between sex and gender. I do agree that there is a unique sociological and cultural construct for both men and women, which can vary at different times and different places, but let's not call it "gender".
The creation/fall/new creation discussion is a great one, and a deeper exegetical dive, then related to the whole Biblical narrative would make a great book.
I think the "why" might be our fallen human nature's tendency to the creation and perpetuation of doctrines and systems that tend to be religious instead of being relational.
Wow!! This was so helpful! I loved the creation/new creation view of Biblical Theology in addressing this issue. At the very least, it causes one to stop and think for a moment before indiscriminately ingesting or adopting a strong patriarchal view.
Michael, I’m in agreement with your points. Complementarianism linked to Patriarchy as defined per KDY, et al, is wrongheaded and leads to many of the problems of abuse we’re seeing. I’m not a fan of this view.
The argument from "is" to "ought" reminds me of one line from the Anglican liturgy:
"As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be / World without end. Amen."
Of course that's theologically suspect - Christians hold that the world had a beginning, isn't in the condition God intended, and will come to an end. (Many scientists would agree on the first and third points. Not all, of course.)
If some like KDY want to rehabilitate the term patriarchy, perhaps there is reason to switch to an adjacent term with all of it’s historical and theological baggage: popery.
Good video and good points. I'm in a little different place (I'm not egalitarian currently defined), but I'm certainly not where Kevin is. (It seems hard core complementarianism goes with hard core TULIP. Maybe that's just my perspective.)
I have to say first of all I don't like the categorical words of complementarian and egalitarian. They seem to carry presuppositions of total male authority in the first case and flat equality in the second. There may be nuances in people's thinking, but those presuppositions seem to dominate.
I am more at a "gender team" perspective, functioning with "realization of biological difference and also each person's unique giftings." But there is no one word for that. Let's create one.
Another semantical issue I have is separating sex and gender. That was never the case until the 1950's. I think it's a mistake. They are best as synonyms. Allowing them to be different, in light of how they have always been previously understood, opens the door to dysphoria between sex and gender. I do agree that there is a unique sociological and cultural construct for both men and women, which can vary at different times and different places, but let's not call it "gender".
The creation/fall/new creation discussion is a great one, and a deeper exegetical dive, then related to the whole Biblical narrative would make a great book.
Hi Randy, I don't know why anybody would be with Kevin on this issue. Yes, creation/fall/new creation is the way to look at this topic!
I think the "why" might be our fallen human nature's tendency to the creation and perpetuation of doctrines and systems that tend to be religious instead of being relational.
Wow!! This was so helpful! I loved the creation/new creation view of Biblical Theology in addressing this issue. At the very least, it causes one to stop and think for a moment before indiscriminately ingesting or adopting a strong patriarchal view.
Stanton, glad you liked it!
Michael, I’m in agreement with your points. Complementarianism linked to Patriarchy as defined per KDY, et al, is wrongheaded and leads to many of the problems of abuse we’re seeing. I’m not a fan of this view.
Brad, yes, there are better ways of being complementarian.