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

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

Post by Gwarlroge » Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:59 am

KR Wordgazer wrote:Oh, I forgot to answer this question of Gwarlroge:
Are you referring to Amy Carmichael, for example?
Yes, Amy Carmichael is one example, but the story I told actually happened to Isabella Thoburn. As for why it happened, it was apparently because her missionary board, like most churchmen of the time, viewed the suggestion that women might baptise as "radical."

You may find this hard to believe, but even such a simple thing as a women's private prayer group or bible study is something that, though widely accepted now, was a bitterly fought battle in churches before it was permitted. Even the Sunday School movement of the late 1700s was originally regarded with deep suspicion by church ministers. Church leaders were appalled at the idea of laypeople -- particularly women-- teaching the Bible. They were afraid that teachers like Hannah More in England were founding covert 'seminaries of fanatacism, vice and sedition." (Edwin Rice, The Sunday School Movement, 1971)
For what it's worth, Jonathan Edwards was on the side of women's Bible study. :)
Edwards' Advice To Young Converts wrote:If you would set up religious meetings of young women by yourselves, to be
attended once in a while, besides the other meetings that you attend, I
should think it would be very proper and profitable.

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 » Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:33 am

I said,
I would really like to see some Scriptural support for the idea that church leaders "represent the Father" or "represent Christ" to the people. Chapter and verse please.
Zarove replied:
Then you need to study the Scriptures more.
You really need to stop making remarks like that. I study the Scriptures plenty, thank you very much.

You went on to say,
1 Corintuians Capter 11 discusses the topic of praying whilst veield and says that the Head of man is Christ and the head of woman is Man.

2 Corinthians 2:10 also mentiosn this concept, though more generlaly for the Christian.
Oh, I didn't know "the head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man" meant, "Church leaders represent the Father or represent Christ to the people." Funny, that. *scratches head*

2 Corinthians 2:10 says, "Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ."

Does this also say, "Church leaders represent the Father or represent Christ to the people"? Wow. It sure is amazing how ignorant I am and how much I need to study the Scriptures. It doesn't seem to say that to me at all. It sure seems to me that Paul is continuing what he was saying in verse 6: "The punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man." (Hmm, there's that word "majority" that Zarove dislikes so much. Wonder what it's doing here? It's the "the many" in the KJV, and the Greek word is pleion, which means "the greater quantity," ie, "majority.") But be that as it may, Paul continues by saying, "Now when you forgive him, I also forgive him." Are you saying that "For your sakes in the presence of Christ" means "as a representative of Christ for you"? "In the presence of Christ" is something quite different from "as a representative of Christ." Christ is present whenever "two or more are gathered" in His name. "For your sakes" is not the same as "on your behalf." Otherwise Paul wouldn't ask the church itself to forgive, he'd just do it for them.

(BTW, that phrase "in the presence of" appears to read in the KJV as "in the person of Christ" -- but the word "presence" is actually the word prosopon, which means, "face" -- literally, the human face. Also by implication, the outward appearance of a person as representative of his inward feelings. "In the person of Christ" does not appear to be an accurate translation. "Before the face of Christ," or "in the presence of Christ" is much more accurate.)

Do you have anything clearer, Zarove-- anything that actually says what you claim it says?
Wag more.
Bark less.

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 » Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:58 am

Zarove said,
A man I know in Texas wants ot be a Priest, but he didn't just go up to his Bishop, say "I've been called", and then begin Seminary. They want him to take a year or two for DIscernemnt.


Then THEY will determien if he is fit.

Then he will train.

Then THEY will decide if he is Ordaiend tot he Deaconate.
Whereas if a woman says, "I've been called," they won't say, "Take a year or two for discernment, and then we will determine if you're fit." They will say, "You're unfit. Go back to the church kitchen and be silent."

My point stands.

ANd about this:
GLorification fo women is not osmethign I prefer either. The whole "BEtter than men can" attiide is oftne unsettling.
You misunderstand. I was not saying women were better than men. I was making a point that even when a women outshines all the men in her class, she still usually can't find a position when she graduates.

In male-dominated fields, a woman has to be twice as good as man to be taken seriously at all. But no, I am not saying women are better than men, or that all women would outshine all men in seminary.
Wag more.
Bark less.

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

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

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:38 am

But, your still approaching this in a deeply flawed manner if you t think the Ministers are Leaders, and women are denied leadership roles.

The way you frame the discussing is that women are “second class citizens” who are “Denied the role of Leader in the Church” and somehow this is the Fault of Patriarchy. Well, the thing is, The Ministers are Ministers, not leaders. The Bible never mentions “Church Leaders” at all. So the Bible never says Church Leaders should be anything.

What it does say is that women should not Preach.


1 Timothy Chapter 2 goes through what a godly woman is suppose to be like, and reading the verses 11-15 pretty well tell the reader that women aren’t to hold those offices. I’ve read the rest of the text in context and know the History, by the way, but nothing in 1 Timothy Chapter 2 suggests anything at all about women teaching or preaching in the way you want them to, and these passages stand.

The other Verses I mentioned show the Divine Order.

Christ is the head of the Man, and the Man is the Head of the Woman. The man is also said to be the Preacher, and to teach in the Spirit of Christ. Its fairly obvious that the text only really supports men being the Preachers, and really only supports this base don the ideas of the man being in the Image of God and the reflection of Christ to those he preaches to, were a woman can’t be as Jesus was, you know, a man.

The purpose of those verses is to act in conjunction tot his and other verses, in which the Church is described in various ways, such as like a Family. The Church is obviously erected to reflect the Divine Order. It is a Monarchy, not a Democracy. It is a family, which is headed by Jesus as King. It is a reflection of Creation in which man was Created first then woman after, for the man.



The problem is, 1 Timothy Chapter 2 doesn’t go away with this. You can try to reinterpret it all you like, but it stays fixed. As do the other Verses. A Minister is the reflection of Christ to the observer, and while not Christ and thus not a perfect Reflection, he is still the representation of Christ to those who hear.

Which bring us back to 1 Timothy Chapter 2.

I cannot Violate Scriptures simply because someone else wants to pretend they are beinf excluded from somethign that doens't even exist, like Churhc Leadership, on the basis of purely modern notions of Equality that didn't exist at the time of the Churches foundation, and wee not introduced by our Lord.




Also, your being irrational if you think I hate the word “Majority”. I dislike Majority Rule, which is not in the Scriptures. Not the word “Majority” in and of itself.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

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

Post by Metacrock » Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:46 pm

Exegetist wrote:Christ is the head of the Man, and the Man is the Head of the Woman. The man is also said to be the Preacher, and to teach in the Spirit of Christ. Its fairly obvious that the text only really supports men being the Preachers, and really only supports this base don the ideas of the man being in the Image of God and the reflection of Christ to those he preaches to, were a woman can’t be as Jesus was, you know, a man.

This is a bit of craziness. Has anyone delved into how this is impossible in the Lord.

It sounds as though Paul is setting up a Metaphysical hierarchy. This cannot be the case, however, as he deconstructs it in the next few verses:(11)However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent F117 of man, nor is man independent F117 of woman.
(12)For as the woman originates F118 from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all R427 things originate F119 from R428 God."
Why would Paul set up a metaphysical hierarchy only to knock it down again? Why would he mandate what was already considered natural? The only gender relations that were known in Paul's world were those dominated by men. It is easy to read the Peagles book, or to hear the propagandizing of radical feminism and assume that the Gnostics, because their groups attracted women and because they talked about goddess "Sophia," that they were radically liberating women, and thus Paul's purpose might be seen as one of reinforcing the hierarchy. On the other hand, these Gnostic groups were not necessarily liberating to women. They attracted women in great numbers for their sexual liberation and because they offered a "quick fix" to knowledge of the divine and to salvation, in an otherwise dismal social situation. That does not mean, however, that they taught the superiority of women. As documented above, some Gnostic groups taught that women were "spiritually men." Even the one gender concept leaves the male as dominate. For a more sobering view of these goddess worship religions see the book by Yale Sumeriologist Tikva Fryemere-Kenski: In the Wake of the Goddesses. (1991).

Paul is reaffirming a hierarchy of sorts, but not one in which the husband rules over the wife. He's affirming a hierarchy in which Christ rules over both males and females, and in which marriage is sanctified by God; a rebirth of the originally intended role of partnership between the genders in creation. He disrupts the flow of the hierarchy in social terms and in terms of rank, by first pointing out the reversal in origins, and then by bringing it all back to God as the source of all. But from this context, because he does speak of who comes from whom, it seems clear that Kefalh carries the connotation of "origin" or "source." He brings up origins to say "in the garden of Eden man and woman were meant to work together." This is what egalitarians call "non-heirarchical complamentarianism." Egalitarians are sometimes complamentarians, male and female complament one another, but not in a hierarchical way. Not the only expression of that mutual labor among equals, but the primary expression of it, is marriage. Marriage is good, it is made by God, and genders are good, they are both equal and both made by God. This is what Paul says to the Gnostic faction when the speaks of "heads," the "sources."

If Paul set up a metaphysical hierarchy with God as the "boss" of Christ, he would be a non Trinitarian. Of course the doctrine of the Trinity didn't exist at that time, but we Trinitarians like to think its elements are found in the New Testament and that Paul would have been one if he knew about it. To say that God is the "boss" of Christ is opposed to stated church dogma regarding the equality of persona in the Godhead! Complamentarians often try to soften the blow of this connotation of "boss," by reducing it to "leader," but then is God just the "leader?" It would seem that God's headship is stronger than just Leadership. Is God Christ's "leader?" It seems the most logical approach is to understand the word as "source."

How is Christ the source of "a man?" It's a metaphorical usage! It doesn't have to have a hard and fast connotation that is the same in every enstance. Man is the source of woman in creation (according to Genesis) and woman is the source of man in birth. These both relate to becoming, but they are not exactly the same. God created everything, but God did not take everything out of a rib, nor did God give birth to the universe out of a womb. So these usages don't have to stack up in exactly the same way. Christ is the "source" of life in a spiritual sense. The life of a person is one of the meanings given kephale in Liddell and Scott. In this case spiritual life. Now, Christ is also the source of spiritual life for a woman, but, Paul is setting an analogy because he has a dual purpose. So he's not talking about that aspect for the women here, but he does say man is "a head of a woman." Man is not the only head of the woman, but "a head." So Christ is the head of a man in the sense of spiritual life, man is the source of woman in the garden, but also culturally man was in the dominant role in a marriage. Paul is not necessarily affirming that as a timeless gesture, but he is reaffirming marriage itself. Let's bracket that aspect, however, until the discussion on Ephesians 5:22.

Paul's dual purpose is (1)To get men not to cover their heads in worship; (2) to get women to cover their heads in worship


read more:

http://www.doxa.ws/social/Women/veil-2.html
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

DT1138
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:46 pm

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

Post by DT1138 » Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:51 pm

In fairness, comming from the Orthodox tradition, the Orthodox usually will point out that both the Father and Son have different roles, but both are equal in divinity and dignity. However, the Son is subordinate to the Father without being unequal.

I have other issues with keeping women out of the priesthood (I'm strongly against denying women's ordination as I believe it is a Christological issue, not Trinitarian), but I can sort of understand their argument. Christianity is not necessarily radically egalitarian if it means saying groups of people are identical in what they can do. Rather, I see denying women's ordination as denying that women can act in persona christi and are unsaved, because what is not assumed is not saved. However, since Christ assumed human nature, which most Christians have interpreted to include both male and female, both men and women should be able to act in His place. To deny that women can be "icons of Christ" is to reduce being an icon of Christ to having male sexual characteristics, which seems absurd. Therefore, "women priests" is not an oxymoron.

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 » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:10 pm

Well said, DT. One might just as well say that because Jesus was Jewish, only Jewish men can serve "in persona Christi."
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

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

Post by Metacrock » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:23 pm

A Sin At Brie wrote:The OP is certainly on the right track. But I think she fails to make an important distinction: Equality in what sense?

Consider the paradox of children:
Children are not equal to adults. They don't have the same rights, freedoms, laws, etc. This is quite plainly a case of inequal treatment. But are Children less valuable, or less equal in value to adults? Never! In many ways they are treated better!

This goes to show that our notion of equality is much more nuanced than it's made out to be.
the distinction between child and parent is a natural divide that makes the tires of authority necessary and justifies them. There is no such distinction between signers. All women are not younger or less mature than all men. Most (vast majority) of children are younger and less mature than adults.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

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

Post by Metacrock » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:53 am

A Sin At Brie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
A Sin At Brie wrote:The OP is certainly on the right track. But I think she fails to make an important distinction: Equality in what sense?

Consider the paradox of children:
Children are not equal to adults. They don't have the same rights, freedoms, laws, etc. This is quite plainly a case of inequal treatment. But are Children less valuable, or less equal in value to adults? Never! In many ways they are treated better!

This goes to show that our notion of equality is much more nuanced than it's made out to be.
the distinction between child and parent is a natural divide that makes the tires of authority necessary and justifies them. There is no such distinction between signers. All women are not younger or less mature than all men. Most (vast majority) of children are younger and less mature than adults.
Well, if we are looking at biology and environment contributing to differences, I believe there are differences between men and women. I don't believe it makes them inferior, but I do believe they can't truly be perfect equals physically.

I think feminism has sufficiently progressed way beyond the days when they tired to say there were no differences. In the 90s they (meaning postmodern, the liberal structure as a whole and feminsm) worked on making diversity and difference a value. So there's no attempt to say there are not differences. They all understand "difference" as not meaning "inferior."
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply