Does it seem to you like the Complementarian and Patriarchal Movements are losing influence?

@Paidiske has said it well, but I wanted to add my agreement. Sports competition is one of the few areas where body type matters, so I think it does make sense to have men's and women's divisions for some sports. But cognitive abilities and spiritual wisdom are different; they don't depend on one's height, or the width of one's shoulders or hips.

Like Paidiske, I don't fit well into the boxes. I make my living teaching math and logic to (mostly male) college students, and I'm pretty good at it. I wasted way too many years of my young adult life wrestling with self-doubt, because of some statements by some Christian leaders that women weren't good at mathematical fields. Eventually, I figured out that if there's any truth in that assertion, it's like the bell curves in Paidiske's post, and why should a tiny difference in the center point of a bell curve keep me from living my life? (It was satisfying that the solution to my conundrum came through a deeper understanding of mathematics. )

@Direct Driver , surely you're not suggesting that there's a spiritual difference between men and women, that there are two spiritual boxes that we're supposed to stuff ourselves into?

Paidiske said:

Just to be clear, are you saying that in your church, all ministries held by married folks are effectively job shared by the married couple? They both have equal authority, equal input into decision making, and equal sharing of the tasks seen as important in leadership?

Or are you describing, say, a situation where a man is appointed senior pastor and the woman then does some "women's ministry" and looks after the Sunday school, or something like that?

Because that second type of situation isn't a genuine sharing of leadership, at all.

Click to expand...

The only example that I can think of was a married couple who were apostles together in a missions-type outreach.

With our recently retired pastors, the wife would teach on occasion (without any fanfare), but he usually did. It wasn't prohibited, she just seemed to prefer to let him do that.

My wife is the same way with letting me run our domestic finances. I would gladly loop her in on them, but she finds them to be overwhelming. (I don't.) I also get feedback from her, before making any big, unusual purchases (which isn't very often).

Sabertooth said:

With our recently retired pastors, the wife would teach on occasion (without any fanfare), but he usually did. It wasn't prohibited, she just seemed to prefer to let him do that.

Click to expand...

So they weren't actually sharing the pastor's role? He was the pastor, and she occasionally taught (the same way, presumably, other people in the congregation might occasionally teach)?

Whereas if they were called to share the role, I'd expect them to be preaching about equally, and for her to be involved in every other aspect of the ministry, too (including being paid equally).

Paidiske said:

Whereas if they were called to share the role, I'd expect them to be preaching about equally, and for her to be involved in every other aspect of the ministry, too.

Click to expand...

Not if one was better at speaking and the other was better at administrations [Romans 12:6-8], etc.

(There were other locations where the wife spoke more often.)

That mix would be different for each couple.

Sabertooth said:

Not if one was better at speaking and the other was better at administrations [Romans 12:6-8], etc.

(There were other locations where the wife spoke more often.)

That mix would be different for each couple.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but if somehow the wife always seemed to be "better" at the low-status, low-authority and non-leadership sort of tasks, or the ones not generally seen as the pastor's job, I would be very suspicious of the claim of real equality.

Paidiske said:

As far as I can tell, complementarianism is just patriarchy in a Christian frame.

Click to expand...

Yeah it’s too bad they wouldn’t just acknowledge their offence and seek His face.

Paidiske said:

Maybe, but if somehow the wife always seemed to be "better" at the low-status, low-authority and non-leadership sort of tasks, or the ones not generally seen as the pastor's job, I would be very suspicious of the claim of real equality.

Click to expand...

I think that Vineyard is organized differently than the Anglican church. No one here is keeping score.

Sabertooth said:

I think that Vineyard is organized differently than the Anglican church. No one here is keeping score.

Click to expand...

What makes you think the Vineyard is a complementarian denomination?

Quite by chance, I came across this this evening, and felt it articulated very neatly some of the things I was trying to put into words about the way women are treated in the church:

Benevolent sexism: a feminist comic explains how it holds women back

Gregorikos said:

What makes you think the Vineyard is a complementarian denomination?

Click to expand...

As I speculated earlier, I believe that when men & women run in their own lanes (with God), the end result is complementarian, but not patriarchy.

Male, and female, domination violates that mutual respect,
where being hands-off (in that regard) affirms that mutual respect.

Sabertooth said:

As I speculated earlier, I believe that when men & women run in their own lanes (with God), the end result is complementarian, but not patriarchy.

Male, and female, domination violates that mutual respect,
where being hands-off (in that regard) affirms that mutual respect.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good. But that isn't complementarianism as defined by those who coined the term and practiced by complementarian denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and others. This is why you and I seem to be talking past one another.

I was trying to ask you diagnostic questions to ascertain where you were coming from, and you seemed evasive and resistant to my questions.

One can't simply Google complementarianism and be safely led to a suitable definition, because the top hits will be complementarian websites which typically obfuscate the ramifications of their doctrine and how it plays out in the real world.

This is a good definition: What does complementarianism mean?

Complementar

Paidiske said:

Quite by chance, I came across this this evening, and felt it articulated very neatly some of the things I was trying to put into words about the way women are treated in the church:

Benevolent sexism: a feminist comic explains how it holds women back

Click to expand...

When it's subtle, and both men and women think it's a good thing, what are the chances of eliminating it? That was a great read for heightening self awareness.

Paidiske said:

And yet it's in a forum where those two boxes, specifically, are undermined as meaningful indicators of anything beyond our biology.

Part of the difficulty I always have with these discussions, as someone who doesn't fit neatly in the boxes in all sorts of ways (from having a voice in a tenor's range to having a vocation many will still insist women can't have) is that for so many of us, those boxes are very poor descriptors indeed, and therefore even worse imperatives. We ought not be confined to generalisations based on our biology.



I couldn't care less about sport, personally, but I think to go from "it wouldn't be fair on women to make every sport an open competition," (an obviously true statement) to "so men are better at particular cognitive skills" is that the latter actually has no evidence to support it. Sure, there are bell curves for the sexes that don't completely overlap, but the area outside the overlap is tiny compared to the overlapping area.

View attachment 294396

I'm not sure why you're bringing Adam and Eve into this particular discussion, but the claim that "Eve deceived Adam" goes beyond what the text says, and in context it seems that you're buying into the argument that women are ethically or rationally weaker than men, which is a claim which is not allowed in this forum.

Click to expand...

That is a minefield. I'm going to bow out of this discussion.

Gregorikos said:

One can't simply Google complementarianism and be safely led to a suitable definition, because the top hits will be complementarian websites which typically obfuscate the ramifications of their doctrine and how it plays out in the real world.

Click to expand...

That is the "euphemistic" use of the word.
Those who say "complementarianism" when they really mean "patriarchy" are the ones who are in error.

They say,
"You conform to 'this' standard of womanhood
and I will conform to 'this' standard of manhood."
(Legalism at its finest worst.)

I say,
"You faithfully embrace womanhood as the Holy Spirit leads you
and I will faithfully embrace manhood as the Holy Spirit leads me."
(Since there are gender-specific Bible verses, it leads to a type of complementarianism, but in the Spirit of the Law, not the letter.)

Sabertooth said:

(Since there are gender-specific Bible verses, it leads to a type of complementarianism, but in the Spirit of the Law, not the letter.)

Click to expand...

Give me an idea, please, of the gender-specific verses you have in mind and the type of complementarianism that you feel they lead to.

I don't have a problem with the idea of "complementarianism" when it comes to PEOPLE in general. As human beings in community, we all ideally complement each other's strengths, talents, abilities, etc. The same could often be said for a married couple.

HOWEVER....

"Complementarianism" in the "Christian" sense is that the male is superior, has all the leadership roles, all the most important non-leadership roles, has all the authority, is more ethical, logical, less inclined to be deceitful (because it was Eve who was deceived, not the man), is the provider, protector, likely the superior intellect and thus has more capacity to make the decisions that his God-ordained authority requires, and basically lays claim to every valuable role that is physically, mentally, and spiritually possible for him. In the more extreme cases, only the male was created in God's image.

Then the woman "complements" whatever he may be lacking, such as physically birthing a baby, and whatever child-rearing or household tasks he finds too demeaning to do for himself. She might be able to go out and get a pink-collar job if money is tight, but in the "ideal" world, she would be obligated to remain at home.

Since she is so much stupider and of poor moral quality (because of the serpent), the idea of her being a pastor or in any sort of spiritual leadership role that doesn't involve other women (because she can't ruin the spiritual lives of those who are already ruined by misfortune of birth) or children (because too demeaning for the man to deal with children) would be a travesty worthy of both earthly and heavenly condemnation.

Well that's Complementarianism at its finest, though some try to coat it with lots of pink icing and ice cream in hopes that no one notices the sheer rottenness at its core.

Gregorikos said:

Give me an idea, please, of the gender-specific verses you have in mind...

Click to expand...

Here's one...

1. For wives, Ephesians 5:22-24.
2. For husbands, Ephesians 5:25-29.

Gregorikos said:

...and the type of complementarianism that you feel they lead to.

Click to expand...

Since I am a man, I am not graced to know what that end product (of #1) looks like. I am pretty sure that the standard, overly simplistic & legalistic patriarchal view* does not line up with the rest of her Bible.

The woman of God has two choices:

• recoil from patriarchy, and tear all the "offending" verses out of her Bible; or
• disregard the legalists --and the liberals-- and sit down with the Holy Spirit and get a truer sense of His intentions [John 14:26].

Without womanly grace, I cannot begin to dictate what that might look like, but the woman who trusts God will gravitate toward the second option, as we all must when faced with difficult Scriptures.**

#2 takes husbands in a different direction, and we require the same leading of the Holy Spirit to get it right. Standard, overly simplistic & legalistic patriarchy won't get us there, either. It is a rip-off for everyone concerned.

*From a Biblical standpoint, it is unbelievably stupid.
**See Matthew 21:43-44

The difficulty I'm having with your position (as I understand it), @Sabertooth, is the assumption that it will result in men and women occupying different social "lanes."

Sabertooth said:

Here's one...

1. For wives, Ephesians 5:22-24.
2. For husbands, Ephesians 5:25-29.

Since I am a man, I am not graced to know what that end product (of #1) looks like. I am pretty sure that the standard, overly simplistic & legalistic patriarchal view* does not line up with the rest of her Bible.

The woman of God has two choices:

• recoil from patriarchy, and tear all the "offending" verses out of her Bible; or
• disregard the legalists --and the liberals-- and sit down with the Holy Spirit and get a truer sense of His intentions [John 14:26].

Without womanly grace, I cannot begin to dictate what that might look like, but the woman who trusts God will gravitate toward the second option, as we all must when faced with difficult Scriptures.**

#2 takes husbands in a different direction, and we require the same leading of the Holy Spirit to get it right. Standard, overly simplistic & legalistic patriarchy won't get us there, either. It is a rip-off for everyone concerned.

*From a Biblical standpoint, it is unbelievably stupid.
**See Matthew 21:43-44

Scandalon, Michael Card (1986)

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you'd put the husband in the leader lane and the wife in the follower lane.