Once More, Is Patriarchy Good for Churches?
I remain deeply concerned at Kevin De Young’s advocacy for nesting complementarianism in patriarchy. So, building on a previous post, I have a video where I lay out my central contention against Kevin De Young’s defense of patriarchy.
Look, I’m egalitarian, but I have complementarian colleagues and students, and we more or less agree that some forms of complementarianism are sadly given to enabling spiritual abuse, domestic violence, and even sexual exploitation. Hear me out, complementarianism does not equal or equate to abuse or abusers. There truly and really are good complementarian men and women who share my revulsion at all abuse. But, as several studies have shown, and as women’s experience attests, complementarianism can morph into unwholesome displays of masculine power.
I don’t want to taint all complementarians with the same brush, but I do think they need some prompting to call out the more dangerous and unwhole expressions of complementarianism. That is why this video, at the very end, has a plea to any complementarian readers to consider a better version than the one Kevin De Young offers.
What do you think?
Are my criticisms fair?
What would you add or challenge in the video?
Very keen to hear from any complementarian friends what they’d affirm or disagree with.
Thoughts are always appreciated!
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.