I have given my fair share of pushback on complementarian thinking. See
this post in particular. Here's a
helpful definition of the term from someone who was there when the term was first coined. I still think there is value in the ideas the term complementarian was originally intended to convey. I also think somebody made a big mistake when they came up with a
new view of the curse around the same time they coined the term complementarian that made feminism the big enemy. Hopefully, correction among complementarians is taking place in a way that will strengthen future generations of women, men, families, and singles in the Church.
5 comments:
Thanks Wendy for posting the link under "helpful definition," as it was helpful, and was fun as well done in the "Dummies" format. I know this is more meaningful to someone who knows the Lord Jesus and wants to understand God's word, yet shared it on my FB as I have friends from my time before Christ who are feminists and in darkness, like I was before my conversion, and praying that God will let them see something of Himself and His way in that explanation of complementarian position. And hoping the "for Dummies" format will lure them into the article. Having lunch with one of these friends tomorrow (Monday, 7/9), so will see if this leads to some conversation about Christ. One never knows when God will open such a door, nor what He will use!
Thanks for this. I have recently stated on my FB page that: "I hold Egali-comple-mentrist views: that is, we are one in Christ Jesus-praise the Lord!"
The reason for that is exactly what you have underlined here: there is a trend in some sectors of Evangelicalism towards unhealthy views of women as almost the only one who sinned because she "was deceived"- and therefore as someone who must therefore have the protection of a man- even perhaps when she is an adult and no longer under the authority of parents.
Therefore, if their daughter is unmarried, some men believe they have the right to determine her spiritual development even when she is old enough to think and live responsibly. There may be many that disagree with me on this, yet I believe (even) women must obey God rather than men.
In other thoughts, I have found in my studies that Paul was by no means the misogynist he has been portrayed as being.
Glad you posted this definition! After considering books such as Half the Church and The Resignation of Eve, I was left struggling with some thoughts. I am complementarian, but I have understood the frustrations voiced in books like these and in other places. For me personally, I've sometimes felt in church that my gifts, my desire to study all of my Bible (not just Ruth and Esther), and to learn theology are more feared than encouraged. I'm blessed to be in a church right now where that is not the case. But so much of what is directed to women by churches seems to be with the sole intent of stamping out a feminist worldview, and often fails to offer a high, exalted view of Christ in the Gospel. Praying that this changes, and thanks again for the post.
I hear you, Natalie. I am hopeful that much needed self-correction will take place among advocates of a complementarian perspective. In fact, I think that's already happening. They are going to lose the heart of women if they don't self-correct, and the mark of strong leaders is that they can hear criticism and self evaluate appropriately.
don's know if this will go through ...
I believe in "complementarian" if the word is used to describe that God made us for each other, that He specifically made us to complement and complete each other.
I object to the way the word is used to mean that if you happen to be male, then that gives you the right to "lord it over" anyone who happens to be female in gender, and especially your wife.
Post a Comment