Dialogue, Baby, Dialogue (and a short statement of application)

Part 5: Dialoguing with others on the whole Gender debate

As you know, we are all about dialogue around here and I have three people to whom I owe some feedback on the gender issue. I also owe a brief statement on how I apply my understanding in a church context. So without further ado, let's figh... err... dialogue.

Interacting with "Not-nervous-egalitarian" Jim Robinson, part 2

(if you want to read Jim's comments they are found here and here)

Greetings once again Jim,

I appreciate your interaction. I like interacting with people I disagree with. Hopefully this can be helpful for both of us. I am going to disagree with a good deal of what you said. Some of it will be because I think your facts are wrong, some of it will be because I have a different opinion, some of it will be because I don't think you really understand the other side of the issue. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you've read Grudem and Piper and assumed that anyone who calls himself a complementarian is a piperite and/or a grudemite. That is simply just not the case. I wouldn't assume you agree with Paul Jewett's take on this issue just because you are both egalitarians (he argues that Paul is wrong and mistaken). On all of these issues there is a wide spectrum.

I think we agree in principle on something but you need to rephrase it. You keep saying that the complementarian position is based in post WWII legalism. Don't say that. The complementarian position has been the default position of the church for two thousand years. People who are complementarians today are complementarians because that is the most straightforward interpretation of the words of Scripture. That doesn't mean its right, but don't you have to at least acknowledge that this is a hermeneutics issue? You keep saying that this is a legalism issue. It's not a legalism issue. It's a hermeneutics issue. Saying that we can't listen to rock music, drink wine, go to movie theaters, or grow facial hair are legalism issues. "Christian" rules that have no biblical basis can rightly be called legalism. A position that has a clear biblical foundation is not being held because of legalistic extra biblical rules. It may be a misunderstanding of the "spirit of the text" but its not legalism. There are complementarians who say that this is an authority of the Bible issue. They would accuse you of not accepting the Bible's authority. Clearly, this is not fair. Its an interpretive issue. To label it as either an authority or legalistic issue is not fair. Let's properly define the debate. Although some legalists may be complementarians, just like there are some egalitarians who believe that the Bible is riddled with errors, does not make it a legalistic position or a legalism issue.

You are absolutely right when you say that the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture. Until recently, we've always had a patriarchal culture. But because the culture is no longer patriarchal does not mean that we should abandon complementarianism. And likewise, as you would fairly argue, just because the culture in Biblical times was patriarchal does not mean it was ideal or God's design. The question at hand is not what the culture is or was but what the Scripture teaches or doesn't teach.

Let me also say that in some aspects of the word I am a feminist (can a man be a feminist?). I am against the abuse and devaluing of women. Although I think that the Bible teaches differing roles for men and women, I am strongly opposed to the abuse of women. If a woman had a husband who was abusing her I wouldn't just tell her to submit (would anyone????) I would have the bum thrown in jail! Neither I nor anyone I know would tell a woman whose husband had an affair and divorced her that she was going to hell. What does that have to do with the issue though? I 100% agree with you about the pay issue (see my last post). As a friend of mine (Nate Duriga) said, "the abuse of the position does not mean that the position is wrong." It seems that you're arguing against the abuse of the issue but have not addressed the issue itself.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you or being unfair. I am trying to be as fair as possible. I know that there are people on both sides of the issue who aren't. Let's not imitate them.

Disagreeing with my own side of the debate: Dialogue with Surls

Because I've already posted several comments on your blog, some of this may be a bit repetitive but I'll try and keep it brief.

For part 1 (Robust Complementarianism from Genesis):

I don't think Genesis offers much in the way of supporting complementarianism, Robust or otherwise. It can be read in light of complementarianism, and then applied assuming the complementarian position, but I don't think it can be used to prove it. I don't think any of your points (man being mentioned first, woman called "helper, etc..) can be used to prove the complementarian position. I think that they are all CONSISTENT with complementarianism, but I don't think Genesis teaches it.

Let me say in support of your point that if God had intended egalitarianism, I would think you would see it taught or implied in Genesis but you don't. The culture assumed a patriarchal society and there is nothing to counteract it. one of the reasons complementarianism is not taught in the Old Testament is that I don't think it needed to be. The instructions in the NT are clearly corrective in light of some issue that needed to be addressed, apparently more than once in more than one context.

Part 2: The Rest of the OT

Yeah I had a lot of beefs with this post and you kind of retreated a bit (at least you said you shouldn't have posted it) so I won't reattack it. I don't think there's really a case there.

Part 3: The New Testament

I was surprised at what passages you didn't deal with but it seems that you are focusing more upon the issue as it relates to the marriage relationship and not in the church, so that's probably why you dealt with the material you did. Regardless, I only have good things to say here.
Very good points about the "traditions which I handed to you." There seems to be a universal formula here that Paul and Peter both use. Certainly this is something universal, not merely situational because some wives were subverting things. Right?

And Duriga, with whom I just can't seem to disagree

As I've told you in person Nate, it rather disturbs me that our takes on these issues are so similar, especially considering how similar our backgrounds are (homeschooled, Liberty, NBS). But I really have nothing to disagree with in your post. Even worse, you stole a lot of things I wanted to say. All I can do is highly recommend that everyone who reads my blog and doesn't read his should read his second-to-last post. It is well stated and points out many issues that need to be addressed from our side of the theological fence.

So to finish... here's me doing what I don't want to do....

All right, I admit it. I don't know how to apply my nervous complementarianism yet. That's part of the reason for the 'nervous'. But my uncertainty cannot be an excuse for not applying something. So here is how I would apply my position, but keep in mind, my position is still developing.

-I would not have a woman as a head pastor of a church.
-I would not have a woman preach to the whole church.
-I would have women on staff of a large church. I don't care what their position title is- pastor directer whatever- because pastor isn't really a biblical position (elder is, and though I am in theory a multiple elder guy, but I don't think there's practically a big difference. I don't have a problem biblically with the way it developed). Regardless, a woman on staff should be paid the same as a man would for the same position/work.
-I would allow women to teach at a seminary
-I would allow women to teach certain classes at a church
-I would believe it is my responsibility as the husband to lovingly lead my household. I would discuss and makes decisions jointly with my wife. The only time I would ever "use the submit card" is in an area where I felt strongly convinced biblically about something. Even then I would always try to reach a consensus. There would, I'm sure, be many many times when I would submit to my wishes to my wife's wishes (like what we're doing friday night, what I'm wearing to the Joneses, what house or neighborhood we move into etc...).

Is there something I'm leaving out that I need to address?

This completes the primacy of this issue on my blog. I will continue to interact with Nate and Austin as they deal with the issue. For now, I'm going to continue my work on my "Apology of Hell" and I think I may do some stuff on a theology of animals. Nate and I have discussed some ideas for what we are doing next. More on that later.

So I'm a "Nervous Complementarian"... and that means what... practically? (yikes!)

I should have posted this earlier. Nate Duriga, in his last blog post, just stole a good deal of my thunder. Oh well, I'll have to continue without it. Because of some complaints concerning the overwhelming length of my blog posts of late, this will be more or less in "list format" and will hopefully be less wordy. This is more of a guide to applying these issues than an exploration into how these things should be applied. I'll be more specific about how I think it should be applied later.

Applying Nervous Complementarianism (these are all applications from a Complementarian perspective. If you are not a Complementarian they may not apply)

For women in the church:

1) If you are uncomfortable using the title "pastor" for a woman on staff, do not use this as an excuse to pay her less than you would for a man with the same job but different title)! This is grossly unfair and unjust and is a horrible testimony to the rest of the world.

2) Define clearly what a woman can and cannot do within your church and stick by it. If you do not clearly define her role, you either create the impression that she can't really do anything or that you are not a complementarian at all- then what's the point?

3) Women Deacons: Define, decide, and apply. I believe women can be deacons (I Timothy 3:11) and many complementarians agree with me. But there are not women as deacons in our churches. Let's fix that. But, if your church is "not there yet" don't force it (Romans 14?), but with patient teaching bring them there.

4) Women Teachers:

a) If you are going to go with I Timothy 2, Clearly define what "teaching" is and what "authority" is. Although this may seem odd, you must also clearly define what "a man" is. Age? Can she teach and have authority over 6 year old boys? We would probably all agree she could. 15 year olds? 19 year olds? etc....
b) Keep in mind that women are commanded to teach women. Does your church practice this in an "official capacity"? Or is it just something you assume will happen on its own?

5) Women in other capacities: Just because you are a complementarian does not mean that women are not important or that their insights are not needed! Intentionally seek their input on everything. Be balanced here though. A lot of churches, though officially run by men, are completely run by women and are thus uncomfortable for most men. Our "church decisions" must be made thoughtfully, the ramifications upon all members of the congregation should be considered, both genders, all "marriage statuses", all races, all ages, etc, etc, etc.

6) Here's a good question that I used to think was a stupid question (I guess I grew up): What are mature Christian women to do when no men take spiritual leadership? Should they find a "puppet man" to "lead" while they pull a Priscilla and coach him from the sideline? Should they just pray and hope that some good men come and save the situation?

7) Is there any distinction for the average "pewsitter"? How (if you do) do you apply "women must be silent and learn at home" and the headcoverings issue? I'm not saying you have to apply these strictly literally but you still have to deal with it and apply it. If you say that headcoverings are cultural then is there a cultural equivalent that does apply?

For Women in the Home:

1) Like Nate said in his blog, what about the nontraditionals? In affirming, teaching, making applications for, and praising women who stay home and raise their children, let's not exclude and isolate women who cant because they have no children, are widowed, are divorced, are unmarried with or without children (remember, God uses and loves people who make mistakes too!), have grown children, whose husbands can't work, or who just have to work to support their family. If you only teach gender roles for 20, 30, 50, or 70% of the congregation, what about the rest?

2) What does submit mean practically, day to day? Does this mean that the man unilaterally makes all of the decisions? That's stupid! Does it mean he has the last say? Does it just apply to "spiritual leadership"?

3) Weird question but I think its a good one (though it might REALLY get me into trouble): What role should psychology, sociology, and biology play in defining gender roles? If sociological/psychological studies show (for instance) that women do a far better job at caring for young children or that children need their mothers more, should these help inform our gender roles? I think we can use these sources with care and discernment to help us better understand gender and how God designed us. We are different because God made us different. Studying human psychology and biology to understand ourselves better seems to be a legitimate way to better understand our God given gifts and roles.

Oops!

I said I'd be short. I'm long again. Forgive me please. I only have one more on this topic. The last entry will include my own application of the issue and some interaction with Austin, Nate, and Jim.

My least favorite verses in the Bible

We all have our favorite verses of Scripture for our own reasons. But is there a verse you don't particularly like? Is there a verse that gives your theology trouble? Does it, perhaps, convict you of something that you are content to continue in? I have several verses I don't particularly like. Some I don't know what to do with. Some I don't want to apply. Some I don't want to be true. Some I am secretly, perhaps, embarrassed of. So let's take off our masks and share our least favorite verses. Some of mine follow:

I Timothy 6:8 "but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content."
Try applying that in our society! Even better, try preaching it!

I Corinthians 11:10 "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels." a) I'm embarrassed of it. b) It's confusing (because of the angels???) c) I don't know how to apply it (or encourage others to apply it) and d) I really don't ever want to have to preach it.

Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." This is my least favorite. I don't like the implications of this. If I ever finally find a wife, marry her, live the rest of my 'this earthly' existence with her, endure the trials and difficulties to a marriage that are brought on by living in a sinful world, upon finally entering a sinfree world, I find that marriage is no more. It messes with my theology on so many levels. It gives my postribulational leanings trouble. It ties my understanding of life in the new earth as something of a restoration of what humans were meant to be in knots. It takes something that I look forward to and see as right and beautiful and makes in temporary. And what is really irritating is that this verse is kind of by itself. Without it, all of these problems would go away. And dagnab it all, it reads fairly clearly. I can't effectively explain it away (yet- I'll think of something).

What verses do you dislike the most?