This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by runamokmonk » Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:02 am

But by this logic, we woudl be braking the two commandments by denyign anyone somethign that they want. At leats if I interpet this correctly.
But we're talking about people asking to be treated "equally" or, to be free from anothers control or domination, so that they can more fully participate in equal relationships where their perceptions and views are heard, and they take part in creating their environment.



If I were a woman Id not ask to preach. I f I did ask to, and was told I could not, I'd not see this as a Violation of those two, because the justification is that it violates the prnciples of the Scriptures I'd expound.

As I understand, the two commandments you referred to above are loving God and loving others. Women who want to be free and be treated as equal to men in all relationships are saying that they take issue with traditional roles which they now view as constraining and want to be free to further actualize themselves. If I was one of these women I'd likely have the view that such relationships were patronizing and lack freedom and so feel, and see, my human diginity and autonomy as being violated.
I think the command to desire the good for others would fall well within the realms of reason to treat them as they are asking to be treated and not doing so as breaking the commandment.
One cannot "Do unto others" in such a fashion that it permits sin, and thats the biggest problem with such interpretations.
I see sin as ruling over others to their injury. At least with this sort of issue. I mean, if someone is saying that they feel injured, even if it is from tradition or, expounded or interpeted from the bible, it should be within reason to question the very things which is being accused of being injurious. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath?

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by runamokmonk » Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:09 am

Bravo, Runamok. It's really very simple-- love God and love one another. And "love one another" means do to them as you would want done to you. If an interpration of a Scripture results in the breaking of one of these, that interpretation is suspect. No matter how many thousands of years old it is.

:)

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by ZAROVE » Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:27 am

So this is the crux.

But we're talking about people asking to be treated "equally" or, to be free from anothers control or domination, so that they can more fully participate in equal relationships where their perceptions and views are heard, and they take part in creating their environment.

But, as I said ealier, people in general aren't equal. In most orginisations, which includes Chruches, Clergy are distinguished form Laymen and usually have more Authority, for example, than do Laymen in eaching. Churhc counsils, boards, or synods also come to mind. If a Heirarhcy exists at all, then peopel aren't really Equal.

Nor are they Equal even wihtout it, for peopel have different talents, interests, and abilities. They have different personalities. Different perspecives.

In this life there is no such thing as Equality.

That said, in this topic, we forget that men and owmen are Bilogically diffeent, and this does include in how they think.

That remains true whether you want them to ascend a Pulpit or not. They are not Equal, and never have been. Does this mean women ar einferior? No. But they arn't the same as men, and this means they aren't really Equal in the sense we are tryign to convey.

A woman can have her voice heard and her concerns considered without Violation of the very simply principle that says women are not to PReach in the Assembley. Churhces have other avenues for this. Liekwise, it is not Domination, it is ismply a reflection of Chrust as our Head, and the Natural Order of the Chruch as reflective of the Family.
As I understand, the two commandments you referred to above are loving God and loving others. Women who want to be free and be treated as equal to men in all relationships are saying that they take issue with traditional roles which they now view as constraining and want to be free to further actualize themselves.

With the central focus on themselves, not God, not following CHrist, not obeying the Teachings of the Churh htey freely associate with...

As I said, this is not a matter of Equality. Its not even a matter of women beign DOminated. Trust me, in the Churhc I attend now women are free to form their own minds and lead their own lives. This doens't make them eligable to be men, which is what woudl have ot happen in order for htem to Preach effectivley.

Its not really that Denyign them means we dont treat htem equally to men, it means we recognise that there is a distinction, and God has said that the Role of PReacher is Reserved for Men, as it reflects Fatherhood, and Jesus himself.

Women simply can't do that.



If I was one of these women I'd likely have the view that such relationships were patronizing and lack freedom and so feel, and see, my human diginity and autonomy as being violated.
Based on?

And again, who are we following? Our Lord and his COmmandments? Or our own desires?


A real quesiton shoudl be, why do they want to PReach in the first place knowign that this is a VIolation of what the Scriptures say?


Talking abiut Self-Actualisation doens't really render hat I've said moot.


I think the command to desire the good for others would fall well within the realms of reason to treat them as they are asking to be treated and not doing so as breaking the commandment.

Treating htem as men when they arne't men is not a form of treatign them with respect, it is a greater insult to them, and an abuse of the Church.

Its not treatign women Equally to men, its educing the role of PReacher otnothign more than a tool to make some owmen feel better, or to push their own desires by ultimatley destorying the foundation the Chruhc was built upon.
I see sin as ruling over others to their injury.

I attend a Churhc of Christ. No one really Rules over anyone else, much less to thir injury.


At least with this sort of issue. I mean, if someone is saying that they feel injured, even if it is from tradition or, expounded or interpeted from the bible, it should be within reason to question the very things which is being accused of being injurious. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath?

Let me repeat the pint.

Preachers reflect Jesus personally. THey also reflect Fatherhood, and the Divine Groom who is leading the Bride of CHrist which is the Church.

Women can't do that, because women can't be men. Jesu was a man. WOmen can't be Husbands, so can't lead "The Bride of Christ".

I don't know why you htink that this injures women at all, other htan you are making the same mistake of looking at htis as a job, which women shoudl be allowed ot do, which consist ofnothing but talking for an hour and maybe visiting sick people.


Allowing women to preach leads ot Injury to the whole CHurch, not just to one woman. Not all women support women preachers, either, nor are those who reject the notion nessisarily cowed by the men in their lives. I know one old lady at the CHurhc I attend who often asks Questions, and doens't even live wth a man beign a widow. She certianly isnt being dominated. She'd oppose with Passion and cinviction women Preachers.

So woudl every woman I know in the CHurhces of CHrist locally.

So to let one woman preahc so shes not injured injures literlaly all other women. It injures the men who oppose it. It injures the CHruch which is set up to reflect the GLroy of God's DIvine Family.

Do you really think its a good argument hen to say peopel are Injured by not lettign women Preach?

Becaue by such an argument you injure many more peopel including the CHruhces abikity to do as it is required.

Preachers aren't there to just Preach. This is not merley a Job. It snot even about Equality. The whole structure of the CHurhc is desigjed outright to reflect the Divine Harmony and Order, which Our CUlture just can't undo. THe CHurhc was, after all, developed in a CUlture hostile to it. It is not the CHruhces mission to change withthe Culture, but to CHange the CUlture.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by KR Wordgazer » Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:31 am

So it's a "sin" for women to do God's work, is it? Zarove, you're not a woman, so how do you know what you'd do if you were a woman who felt a clear call of God to preach, but the men said "no"? You might do what women did throughout the 19th and early 20th century-- they went overseas and preached and taught the gospel. The men didn't stop them because, after all, the people receiving the blessing of the gospel were only natives. :roll: And God blessed these women's ministries and gave them giftings in preaching, leadership, and administration. Thousands responded to their preachings-- until the men got jealous and put a stop to it. Which one was the sin?

Was the female missionary who wrote to her missions board to tell them the women of the harems were being converted and wanted baptism, asking permission to minister to them, in sin? Or was it the men on the missions board who would not go themselves, or send a man, but yet refused baptism to the foreign women because they would not permit a woman to baptise them?

Quite frankly, on this issue I'm mad as hell with all the pain and misery I've seen perpetuated in the name of Christ, onto women who are taught that they "sin" if they act like Christians and obey God's call on their lives. It's morally abhorrent, and I'm not going to be quiet or gentle about it any more-- any more than Rosa Parks was when she would not give up her seat on the bus. Galatians 4:2 gives all believers in Christ "full rights as sons" of God. This phrase has the meaning of conferring all the privileges of a man adopted to Roman sonship-- and it is for Jew and Greek, slave and free, and male and female. Please don't give me the bilge about this passage being only about salvation. It was never intended as a way for freeborn Jewish males to hand a sop to slaves and Gentiles and say, "There, be content with salvation. We freeborn Jews get all the good stuff in the Kingdom." And if slaves and Gentiles get full rights as sons, so do women. It's right there in the passage.

It's very easy when you're in the privileged group, to judge those who are treated as lesser, for wanting what your group takes as its right. You wouldn't say what you're saying about "equality" if you had ever actually been treated as a lesser being. "He jests at scars who never felt a wound."

God is not an arbitary tyrant who calls it "sin" when half the Body of Christ does something that the other half takes for granted. God doesn't give His gifts and callings according to the flesh. And I don't want to fight with you about this, Zarove, but I've seen too many women harmed by male supremacy, and I'm not putting up with it any more. Please take your male supremacy and vaunt it somewhere else.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by Gwarlroge » Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:28 am

KR Wordgazer wrote:So it's a "sin" for women to do God's work, is it?


Well, no. It depends on what you mean by God's work.
Zarove, you're not a woman, so how do you know what you'd do if you were a woman who felt a clear call of God to preach, but the men said "no"? You might do what women did throughout the 19th and early 20th century-- they went overseas and preached and taught the gospel. The men didn't stop them because, after all, the people receiving the blessing of the gospel were only natives. :roll: And God blessed these women's ministries and gave them giftings in preaching, leadership, and administration. Thousands responded to their preachings-- until the men got jealous and put a stop to it. Which one was the sin?
Are you referring to Amy Carmichael, for example?
Was the female missionary who wrote to her missions board to tell them the women of the harems were being converted and wanted baptism, asking permission to minister to them, in sin?


Absolutely not, I say. (If complementarianism comes to patriarchy, then she at least preached to women.)
Or was it the men on the missions board who would not go themselves, or send a man, but yet refused baptism to the foreign women because they would not permit a woman to baptise them?
I don't know the reasoning behind it, since I see no texts which say that women can't baptize. I could be wrong about the implications of some other text, but as far as I can tell, why not have women baptize?
Quite frankly, on this issue I'm mad as hell with all the pain and misery I've seen perpetuated in the name of Christ, onto women who are taught that they "sin" if they act like Christians and obey God's call on their lives.


Ok, it depends on what you mean by a call, or how you sense a call.
It's morally abhorrent, and I'm not going to be quiet or gentle about it any more-- any more than Rosa Parks was when she would not give up her seat on the bus. Galatians 4:2 gives all believers in Christ "full rights as sons" of God. This phrase has the meaning of conferring all the privileges of a man adopted to Roman sonship-- and it is for Jew and Greek, slave and free, and male and female. Please don't give me the bilge about this passage being only about salvation. It was never intended as a way for freeborn Jewish males to hand a sop to slaves and Gentiles and say, "There, be content with salvation. We freeborn Jews get all the good stuff in the Kingdom." And if slaves and Gentiles get full rights as sons, so do women. It's right there in the passage.
What do you mean by "all the good stuff in the kingdom"? If you mean "more material stuff or worldly privileges than other Christians," then yes, they probably did get more of that.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by KR Wordgazer » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:39 am

"All the good stuff in the Kingdom," as you can read from the context, means everything that men enjoy without question and women have been taught is a sin for them. It has nothing to do with worldy possessions.

The ability to heed a call on your life and have others accept that your call is real.
The ability to study the Bible and share what you've learned without being told to be silent. (Do you know that throughout church history, men have often denied women even the power to preach to other women?)
The ability to use inborn leadership skills and not be told to go back to the church kitchen.
The ability to be taken seriously when being mistreated by a spouse, and not be told it's all your own fault for not being submissive enough.
The ability to choose not to have children and not have your faith be held suspect.
The ability to be listened to, taken seriously, and treated as a full human being in an institution in which you have usually been the majority members.
The ability to not be told you "want to be a man" when all you want is to be fully human, and not a subspecies that God has chosen for all the drudgery in life, while others enjoy the fruit of your labors and take all the credit for it.
The ability not to be ignored in church history and in the church itself, for all the hard and unthanked work you do, work that men consider beneath them-- when Jesus Himself took the lowliest place of a slave and considered nothing beneath Him, and told His disciples to do likewise.

Last time I checked, "sin" was not about Christians preaching and teaching, exercising their spiritual gifts, or doing any other thing that is a "good work" if a man does it. How can something be a "good work" for half the body of Christ and "sin" for the other half? This re-definition of "sin" has to go.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10036
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by Metacrock » Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:41 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:So it's a "sin" for women to do God's work, is it? Zarove, you're not a woman, so how do you know what you'd do if you were a woman who felt a clear call of God to preach, but the men said "no"? You might do what women did throughout the 19th and early 20th century-- they went overseas and preached and taught the gospel. The men didn't stop them because, after all, the people receiving the blessing of the gospel were only natives. :roll: And God blessed these women's ministries and gave them giftings in preaching, leadership, and administration. Thousands responded to their preachings-- until the men got jealous and put a stop to it. Which one was the sin?

Was the female missionary who wrote to her missions board to tell them the women of the harems were being converted and wanted baptism, asking permission to minister to them, in sin? Or was it the men on the missions board who would not go themselves, or send a man, but yet refused baptism to the foreign women because they would not permit a woman to baptise them?

Quite frankly, on this issue I'm mad as hell with all the pain and misery I've seen perpetuated in the name of Christ, onto women who are taught that they "sin" if they act like Christians and obey God's call on their lives. It's morally abhorrent, and I'm not going to be quiet or gentle about it any more-- any more than Rosa Parks was when she would not give up her seat on the bus. Galatians 4:2 gives all believers in Christ "full rights as sons" of God. This phrase has the meaning of conferring all the privileges of a man adopted to Roman sonship-- and it is for Jew and Greek, slave and free, and male and female. Please don't give me the bilge about this passage being only about salvation. It was never intended as a way for freeborn Jewish males to hand a sop to slaves and Gentiles and say, "There, be content with salvation. We freeborn Jews get all the good stuff in the Kingdom." And if slaves and Gentiles get full rights as sons, so do women. It's right there in the passage.

It's very easy when you're in the privileged group, to judge those who are treated as lesser, for wanting what your group takes as its right. You wouldn't say what you're saying about "equality" if you had ever actually been treated as a lesser being. "He jests at scars who never felt a wound."

God is not an arbitary tyrant who calls it "sin" when half the Body of Christ does something that the other half takes for granted. God doesn't give His gifts and callings according to the flesh. And I don't want to fight with you about this, Zarove, but I've seen too many women harmed by male supremacy, and I'm not putting up with it any more. Please take your male supremacy and vaunt it somewhere else.

second!

bravo!
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by ZAROVE » Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Kristen, maybe you should read what I wrote and reply to that.


As the fellow above noted, no one argues that preaching to other women is wrong, nor to perform Baptisms.

However, if you follow the Logical extension that I presented, a woman as Ministry basically removes the manhood of Jesus, and renders the marriage of the Church to Jesus as reflected in the Ministers position as a Lesbian relationship.

The Churches structure is suppose to reflect the Divine Order, and the positions in the Church are relative to the role of the Church itself. If the Minister is suppose to be representative of Jesus in all his form, and is suppose to reflect the wedded nature of the Groom to the Bride, then how is it a woman can do this?


Its not a blessing to confuse those sorts of states. Its simply the removal of the entire point of the structure.

Women being allowed to Minister removed from the position of Minister that reflective, representative Role. You may as well make Communion nothing more than a communal meal, or Baptism nothing but a Bath.

Baptism requires water. It always has, and always will. Without water it is not Baptism.

Communion requires bread and the Fruit of the Vine. Usually wine. (Grape Juice is also used widely, but is just unfermented wine.)


If we use apples and Lemonade instead, its not communion, and would no longer connect us to the communion lead by Christ himself.




I doubt you’d want to change those aspects, but because of personal feelings and a refusal to even acknowledge the reasoning behind what I’ve said you want to destroy the Ministry position of the Church? Because a woman in that role does ultimately destroy the entire nature of the structure. You’d have to redefine it into nothing BUT someone who teaches, and it’d have to necessarily loose that reflective aspect.


So you can rail about it being unfair, but its far more unfair, and far more unjust, to want to change something for personal reasons, out of personal desires, than to accept what is given to us that has always worked, and the reason behind it.

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by tinythinker » Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:13 pm

ZAROVE wrote:However, if you follow the Logical extension that I presented, a woman as Ministry basically removes the manhood of Jesus, and renders the marriage of the Church to Jesus as reflected in the Ministers position as a Lesbian relationship.
I guess that make your relationship to Jesus homosexual since you are symbolically the bride of Christ. I had no idea you swung that way.
Adrift in the endless river

User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by Gwarlroge » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm

BTW, before I post, I may have held a biblically indefensible position before. I sort of grew up thinking that men have authority over women without question (although I never really liked this doctrine). As it turns out, complementarianism may imply that fathers have authority over their daughters and husbands over their wives, but it does not imply that men qua men are necessarily superior to women.
KR Wordgazer wrote:"All the good stuff in the Kingdom," as you can read from the context, means everything that men enjoy without question and women have been taught is a sin for them. It has nothing to do with worldy possessions.
Well, you mentioned slaves and Gentiles. I thought you meant something more general.

The ability to heed a call on your life and have others accept that your call is real.
Necessary for salvation, if "others" includes God. :)
The ability to study the Bible and share what you've learned without being told to be silent. (Do you know that throughout church history, men have often denied women even the power to preach to other women?)
No, I didn't know that. Why did they?
The ability to use inborn leadership skills and not be told to go back to the church kitchen.
Haha. My early opinion on this is: Leadership is a gift that women may have as well as men. They should use it in ways that edify the church.
The ability to be taken seriously when being mistreated by a spouse, and not be told it's all your own fault for not being submissive enough.
Ooh! Yes, absolutely! :(
The ability to choose not to have children and not have your faith be held suspect.
Not sure about this one. Postponing children, or using some forms of birth control, I'm fine with. (Just so we're clear-ish on that.)
The ability to be listened to, taken seriously, and treated as a full human being in an institution in which you have usually been the majority members.
Absolutely.
The ability to not be told you "want to be a man" when all you want is to be fully human, and not a subspecies that God has chosen for all the drudgery in life, while others enjoy the fruit of your labors and take all the credit for it.
"Give her the fruit of her hands"! "Let her works praise her in the gates"!
The ability not to be ignored in church history and in the church itself, for all the hard and unthanked work you do, work that men consider beneath them-- when Jesus Himself took the lowliest place of a slave and considered nothing beneath Him, and told His disciples to do likewise.
All believers are commanded to consider no work beneath them.

Post Reply