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 » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:30 pm

tinythinker wrote:
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.
No, the Bride of Christ is the church as a whole, not Zarove in particular.

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 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:32 am

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.
Husbands are to have authority over their wives. Husbands are to be in a position of power over their wives to control, inhibit, and give approval, and this does not imply a superior position over the wife. There's no way getting around the fact that men as men will become husbands when they marry. And women as women become wives when they marry.

In another thread I tried give a verbal description of how I visualize the world. Or the social world. It's a pyramid with God at the top and we keep creating structures pointing up toward God, or more accurately, the structure being governed by God on down. But how I see it is that Jesus Christ upturns such a notion by being crucified at the bottom of this pyramid. In fact the top of the pyramid, or likely more accurately the pyramid itself, crucified Jesus in God's name.

I don't see God's authority coming from above. God has become upside down to me. In seeing God being below me does it make me want to lower myself closer to him, or more truly, when I am low I know have Christ with me. I don't even see God has having authority over me the way that I've seen it argue that the man should have authority over his wife. I take scriptures such as the world bowing to Christ's authority very differently than what it seems many interpret such passages. One may very well bow to Christ's authority not because it is imposed on one from above but because I see his suffering love, below me, and follow because of the self evident "higher value" which one acknowledges.

THe way I see it, is that our cultural values and structures are projected onto God, as a sort of seal of approval, or legitamacy from above. Whereas Christ's authority of love comes from below, crucified.

I realize not all see as I do and most won't agree. But I think I may see things diffeently.

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

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

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:53 am

Gerorge above has covered this, but I will too.

"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.

But, for me there is no such a thing. Its not liek Im saying men can have sex with random women before marriage, but women can't. (It'd be sort of hard ot anyway.)


All are expected to cmply to the Will of God and Jesus our King.



The ability to heed a call on your life and have others accept that your call is real.


People who preach in the Church of Chrst don't say they are "Called". They decide, and the Church accepts.


Others though do have this, but one has to ask, if God himself established the Churhc to operate on a male-only clerical system, why woudl he call a woman? While you may want ot turn this around and say "Thats the point, he does!" Your still misisng the point. The reason peple woudl treat it with suspicion, or simply reject it, is because it does go agaisnt the instuctions the Church recieved as an institution.

Heck, Ideally the Church doesn't even listen to men when they say they are called, they have to be subjected to rigerous testign and consultation, and then the Churhces approve them, in he vast majority of Churches I know of. People dont ust get up, say "I've been called", and then get to preach from Pulpits.

Usually it takes years of seriosu study, and gruelling counseling, and only then will a Churhc allow them to assist, much less ascend the Pulpit as Principle Minister of a given group.

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?)


In the Bible clases I attend, women are feee to ask Questions or share their insights int he clsss itself.

As to the Historical treatment of women, its also been true that Throuhgout Church Hisotry women have been commanded to Preach t pother Women in order o preserve propriety.

Whats your point?

The ability to use inborn leadership skills and not be told to go back to the church kitchen.

But a Minister is not really suppose to be a Leader. hey are uppose to be Servants.

If women wish to lead, let them enter Politics. Let them own Buisnesses. Anyone who wants ot Lead as a Minister is denyign the obvious point of the Ministry.



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.
Agreed, but not the same issue. I'm sure that some Churhces have doen this, but its not liek all who refuse women the position of "Leader" in the Church also agree to send them back into abuse. Likewise, female Clergy may well mock and ridicule makle vitims of domesric Violence for "Not beign man enough".

I've heard cases such as that, too.

But this describes a Failure of the Churhc to act properly in situatiosn involving Domestic Violence, not a Failure of the Churhc in not lettign women preach.

The ability to choose not to have children and not have your faith be held suspect.

But this isn't even really given to men, is it?


Aren't both sides told to try to have Children if possible by such groups?


Further, you still seem to place yoru own interests abov the actual teachings of the Churhc your suppose to be tryign to follow, which itself disturbs me.


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.
Not mroe tosh about Democracy. You do know that Majority Rule is not really ho the Churhc is se up, right? The Churhc is a Monarchy.

That said, I know of no Church in my area that doens't listen to women or treat them as fully Human.


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.

This is oerdramatic. In fact its malodrama. I'm sorry but., not lettign women rpeach for the reasons I listed above doesn't consign them to a life of Drudgery, nor does it take the Fruit of their Labour.

It doens't render them a subspeicies, either.


It simply reflects the Divine Order which can't be set aside simply because someone wants it to.


The ability not to be ignored in church history and in the church itself, for all the hard and unthanked work you do,

You do know that in Catholisism, ne of those evil Patriarical Churhces that will not Ordain women, the Virgin Mary is the Highest of the Saint sin heaven , right? She's listed as "The Queen of Heaven' and intreated mroe hran any other, and venerated much mroe than any other Saint.

St. Mary Magdalene is admiteldy a Distant Second, btu also a Second.

St. Rita, St. Bridget, St. Caroline, Blessed Katarie, St. Abigale, St. Dolorose, many, many women make the list of Saints routinely invoked to intersession.


Mother Theresa wa sin this life Honoured by the CHruch, as was At, Joan of Arc. (Her Trial as a withc had mro to do withthe Engish CLerics who tried her than anytign else. Hey, she was French andthey wre at War, what do you expect?)

Even outside of Cahtolic or Orthodox circles, women are Routinely HONOURED by several CHruches for htier commitemt, work thatbenefits others, and loyality, as well as their moral Life.


So this point is moot.


work that men consider beneath them--

You cannot cim to be combatign Sexiusm, only to turn aroudn and make a Sexist claim like this, and expect to be taken Seriously. DO you reallythink all men see certain work as beneith them, but will let owmen do it and benefit form it, only to shrotchange them? If so, then your view of men is quiet Poisoned.

when Jesus Himself took the lowliest place of a slave and considered nothing beneath Him, and told His disciples to do likewise.

But, your makign a presumption abotu an Enture sex. If I were to do rthis abotu women, how woudl you react?


Last time I checked, "sin" was not about Christians preaching and teaching,
Then you have never heard of Heresy.



exercising their spiritual gifts,

But what if one employs thier Spiritual gifts in an effort at subverting somethign the Chruch has clealry taught? The use of a Spiritual gift to undermine Chruhc teaching woudln't really be benificial woudl it?

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.

Because, the Ministers position is to Relfect the GLory of Jesus as he wa son Earth and serve as Jesus in that Capacity for thise in audience. he is there to reflect hte Divine Order, withthe Churhc as the Bride of CHrust and he representign the Groom, and the Fatherhood of God.


WOmen can't do that, because they can;t embody Fatherhood and can't be Husbands. To allow them to be Ministers woudl undermine the very essence of the role they seek to fulfill.

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 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:15 am

Further, you still seem to place yoru own interests abov the actual teachings of the Churhc your suppose to be tryign to follow, which itself disturbs me.
Here we go again. I disagree with your church's interpretation of the Bible, therefore I am going against Christianity. Give me a break. This seems to be the big thing that complementarians fall back on. Somehow your reading is THE correct meaning, and no one better dare disagree or they're going against God Himself. I will admit to the possibility that I could be biased. Will you?

I believe in the Priesthood of the Believer. We are all "kings and priests" says the book of Revelation, not "kings and priests and laymen and women." I need no mediator between myself and God but Christ alone. The Levitical priesthood is done away with in the New Covenant according to the Book of Hebrews, to be replaced with Jesus our One and Only High Priest. We need no other. Those who lead the meetings are just as much the Bride of Christ as those who sit in the pews. The church should accept no other Groom than her Lord and Savior. It is what you are teaching that I consider false-- that males somehow have superior status before God because of their Y-chromosome. That anyone, male or female, has a right to represent Christ to the rest of the Body, I consider completely unbiblical. I stand with millions of other Protestants on this. It certainly isn't some "heretical" idea I came up with on my own!

As for what I said about men-- you know very well I was talking about men as a whole, and not you personally, Zarove. When a person of color talks about white discrimination, I admit to the crimes of my race against theirs-- I don't get personally defensive as if they're talking about me. Not everything is about me. See what I mean?

The fact of the matter is that men have traditionally considered "women's work" beneath them. And that includes in the church. No, it doesn't mean every individual man.

My point is that the historical treatment of women by men in the church, has often been to do whatever possible to hang onto male dominance and power. Even (sometimes) if it means forbidding women to preach to or baptise other women. No, not all sects of Christianity have always done this. The fact remains that it is a general historical pattern of fallen humanity. "He shall rule over you," was one of the results of the fall. And ruled he has. In spades.

Runamokmonk, please consider the possibility that husband-authority was an aspect of the fallen cultures into which the Church was born. The Apostles taught that believers should subject themselves to human authority structures. This doesn't mean they were endorsing all the authority structures of Bible times as being the divine plan of God.
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 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:36 am

Lets try this.

Here we go again. I disagree with your church's interpretation of the Bible, therefore I am going against Christianity. Give me a break.

But, you won't giv eme one by actually engagign int he poutns I raised, and were the one who wanted to discuss this.


This seems to be the big thing that complementarians fall back on. Somehow your reading is THE correct meaning, and no one better dare disagree or they're going against God Himself. I will admit to the possibility that I could be biased. Will you?


I'm ot a COmplamewntarian. I do not beekive in Equality at all.


And, I can only chang emy view with valid evidence, not with what you have presented.

I've alreayd said my view can change if evidence is presented, but it has to be real evidence, not impassioned please or examples of owmen who did something amazing somewhere lese soem time ago.

I believe in the Priesthood of the Believer. We are all "kings and priests" says the book of Revelation, not "kings and priests and laymen and women." I need no mediator between myself and God but Christ alone.

I am Churhc of CHrist which has no Priuetshood, but am tryign to cover all Positions you woudl critisise.


Those who lead the meetings are just as much the Bride of Christ as those who sit in the pews.

No, they aren't. The Churhc as an institution is the Bride of CHrist, not the individual members. As George said above.


The church should accept no other Groom than her Lord and Savior. It is what you are teaching that I consider false-- that males somehow have superior status before God because of their Y-chromosome.

But, I didn't teachthat males have a Superior STanding before God because of their Y CHromosome. I said that men are the only oens admited to Prwachign in the Chruch or serving as Ministers as this reflects the Divine Order and Jeuss personally. The Minister represents Fatherhood, and represents Jesus our King in the Bride of Christ.


Thats not saying "Men are usperior, thy have a Y CHromosome" and deals direclty wiht a Theological perspective regardign the Role.


That anyone, male or female, has a right to represent Christ to the rest of the Body, I consider completely unbiblical. I stand with millions of other Protestants on this. It certainly isn't some "heretical" idea I came up with on my own!

But it is a HEretical idea that Protestants like Martin Luther woudl have condemned.


I hate to break it to you but, I am of the CHruche sof CHrist, not a Cahtolic, and we have no Priesthood, But all Ministerial roles are still ultimatley seen in the same general way.

And have been for he last 2000 years. You can read these same ideas from Augustine, or even CLement.


As for what I said about men-- you know very well I was talking about men as a whole, and not you personally, Zarove.

That was sort of my point. You are talkign abotu men in general. You are usign a Gender sterotype.


I didn't mention myself, but most men I've met don' act as you describe, and while Im sure soem do, thats no reaosn to disparage the otality of the Sex.


The fact of the matter is that men have traditionally considered "women's work" beneath them. And that includes in the church. No, it doesn't mean every individual man.

But, this is a Cultural rather than THeological point, and one larlgey no longer existant in our Culture.

It was even fluid in the past. Is Seing WOmens work? Most men knew how to Sew in the 19th Century.



My point is that the historical treatment of women by men in the church, has often been to do whatever possible to hang onto male dominance and power. Even (sometimes) if it means forbidding women to preach to or baptise other women. No, not all sects of Christianity have always done this. The fact remains that it is a general historical pattern of fallen humanity. "He shall rule over you," was one of the results of the fall. And ruled he has. In spades.

But if you admit that there is a THeological basis for the Rule over women by men, dons't that undermien yoru initial point?

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 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:58 am

I am talking about men as a group in history, not ALL MEN. I don't know why you can't seem to see that.

As for the Fall being a "theological basis" for the rule of men over women-- I'm amazed. The Fall was a Bad Thing. The results of the Fall were Bad Things. Surely we can at least agree on that?

I do happen to know you're Church of Christ. Good grief. But what you're talking about is semantics. To "represent" the Father or Jesus to the congregation is to be a priest. Whether you want to call it that or not.

You sure like to throw that word "heresy" around. Did I say it was not a sin to teach heresy? But you say it's a sin for women to teach orthodoxy-- and then when I ask how that can be a sin, you start talking about teaching heresy. How can I address your points when you do gymnastics like that?
Wag more.
Bark less.

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 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:34 am

Gwarlroge wrote:
tinythinker wrote:
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.
No, the Bride of Christ is the church as a whole, not Zarove in particular.
I am using ZAROVE's logic. If a single female priest make the relationship "lesbian", a single male in the laity make the relationship "gay". You lucky boy you :mrgreen:
Adrift in the endless river

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 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:37 am

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.
tinythinker wrote: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.
Zorave wrote:No, the Bride of Christ is the church as a whole, not Zarove in particular.
I am using ZAROVE's logic. If a single female priest make the relationship "lesbian", a single male in the laity make the relationship "gay". You lucky boy you :mrgreen:

LOL :mrgreen:


let's hope God is not as rigid with his symbolism as we are.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

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 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:38 pm

Right. :mrgreen:

And yes, I should have said, "part of the Bride of Christ." But how can a part of the Bride represent the Groom?

Zarove, what you are saying is that the Incarnation was not about Jesus being human, but about Jesus being male. But perhaps we should take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. Jesus wasn't just male, but a Jewish male. If His fleshly particulars matter so much, then all ministers should be male and Jewish.

Do you realize what you're saying about women? If Christ's maleness is what matters, then as a female I cannot be a Christian to the same degree a male is. I am a lesser being, a second-class citizen in the Kingdom of Heaven. I cannot represent Christ to the world like a man can. Is this what Christ taught? Christ who defied cultural conventions to give His message to the woman at the well in Samaria, effectively making her His messenger to the Samaritan people? Christ who insisted that in "sitting at his feet, listening to his word" (which was a phrase used to describe a disciple learning doctrine from a rabbi with a view to becoming a rabbi in turn), Mary was "choosing the good part, which shall not be taken away from her"? Christ who deliberately appeared first after His resurrection to women like Mary Magdalene (He could easily have just waited for her to bring Peter and John and then appeared to them), so that the 12 apostles HAD to begin their witness by acknowledging that though the world of that time would not accept the witness of a woman, Christ was insisting that they had to do so?

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. I don't think it's in there.

As for Mary and the other female saints, do you really think that honoring a few women makes up for oppressing all the rest of them? In truth, women who distinguished themselves by their piety and holiness were most often considered to be anomalies who had "transcended their sex." "What a woman she is, if it is permissible to call such a manly Christian a woman!" was a common sentiment. (Jerome, Epistle 29, quoting Paulinius of Nola regarding Melania the Elder, circa AD 419.)

Martin Luther. Should I regard his teachings on women as Scriptural when he said, "If women get tired and die of [child]bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die as long as they bear; they are made for that." He also said, "Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, and accordingly they possess intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips. Women ought to stay home; the way they were created indicates this, for they have broad hips and a wide fundament to sit upon, keep house and bear and raise children." Granted that Luther also granted women more respect as wives and mothers than medieval Catholicism ever had, I still am under no obligation to consider his every teaching biblical, just because I am a Protestant.

As for this:
Heck, Ideally the Church doesn't even listen to men when they say they are called, they have to be subjected to rigerous testign and consultation, and then the Churhces approve them, in he vast majority of Churches I know of. People dont ust get up, say "I've been called", and then get to preach from Pulpits.
Honestly, this is over the top. Do you really, honestly think women don't attend seminaries, but just sit around expecting to be able to say, "I''ve been called," and then get up and preach? What kind of view of women is this? Women do attend seminaries whenever men will let them, and often distinguish themselves above all their classmates in scholarship, moral character, and mental acumen-- and then when they graduate, find nowhere to exercise their gifts.
Last edited by KR Wordgazer on Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:45 pm

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)
Wag more.
Bark less.

Post Reply