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

Paidiske said:

@Sabertooth, is the assumption that it will result in men and women occupying different social "lanes."

Click to expand...

Every Christian has their own personal walk with God. "Staying in one's own lane" means that we cannot compel another Christian to "walk" by our standards [Romans 14:4] (or vice-versa).

That is no less true for a husband and wife.

Gregorikos said:

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

Click to expand...

You misunderstand my use of "lanes."
Slow down.
Take a breath.
Your tunnel-vision keeps recasting everything that I write in the wrong paradigm.

Fleshly liberalism is not the antidote to fleshly legalism. Only the Holy Spirit is (to both).

Patriarchy and "complementarianism" are slowly losing ground, which I think is why we see these things being voiced so strongly by a minority.
I am a widow and wish I had a nickel for every time I was told I "needed" a man since my husband died. I've yet to get a straight answer as to why. I can take care of myself just fine. Financially, I have no worries. Home projects...two choices, do it myself or call an expert. Car repairs...same thing. Making decisions, not a problem. "Intimacy", no thanks.
When I was married, I was married to someone who was rather a gentle soul, artistic, not into "manly" stuff. Heck, he didn't even know where to put oil in the engine of his truck! I did. I was also the main breadwinner...and it didn't matter one whit. We both had our strengths and weaknesses. Those were complementary. Where I was really bad at something, he was very good. We never divided things by "gender". He was an artist...I sat and yelled at the TV watching football games. I was outside adding mods to my car. He was inside working on some carpentry project. Our marriage worked quite well for the time it lasted (a little under 21 years). I utterly adored him and he did me.

Patriarchal, from what I see in my circle, has definitely lost influence. I think that complementarian teachings, however, have been gaining influence.

Over the past couple of decades, there has been a shift among complementarian teaching towards including focus on Ephesians 5:21, which I used to see routinely ignored. (Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ). Even the latest NIV reflects that as it now groups Eph. 5:21 with 22-33 under the heading "Instructions for Christian Households". My original NIV from 1985 had 5:21 lumped in with everything prior and started at 5:22 under a "Wives and Husbands" heading. That has caused complementarian teaching to be much less about the man being the executive leader of the family towards practicing servant leadership. Probably 20 years ago, Robertson McQuilken spoke at our church and stated what at the time seemed a bit radical and caused a lot of discussion that evening. He took the stance that the man ultimately was the decision maker but if he was truly serving his wife he should only exercise that role when a decision had to be made and husband and wife could not agree. What shocked many men was he said if you did that more than a couple of times in your marriage you were probably not serving your wife properly.

Complementarianism still runs a gamut from Robertson's philosophy to one where the husband is a much more active decision maker, but there definitely has been a shift more towards Robertson's concept. That shift has made it more palatable to people who understood the inherent lack of love in the patriarchal and earlier complementarian practices. And IMHO that shift has also given it increased influence in the church overall.

I have read every one of this thread's comments most carefully. A very good OP question. I can tell you this. If someone like me who was raised in a "benevolent dictatorship" as a child could change to the position I currently hold on these matters, then patriarchy and complementarianism has indeed lost ground. My parents based their entire life's mission on raising us 4 kids with a rather strange doctrine. They believed that a wife was required to obey her husband in EVERYTHING - bar none - even if that included a command for her to sin. In that case, they believed that God would not charge the wife with sin in that case, but instead "He shall bear her iniquity" if the husband caused a wife or daughter to commit a sin at his command. This doctrine of theirs was based on that single pronoun "Her" in the Numbers 30:15 verse. Which I found out some 50 years later wasn't even there in the LXX. It reads instead that "He shall bear HIS iniquity", if the father or dad caused a wife or daughter to sin by making them cancel a vow.

Of course, this upbringing brought about 4 marriages that were all profoundly patriarchal in their establishment. In my case, I have in the past 5 years or so finally tossed this garbage overboard, but it has come at a cost. Freedom is worth any cost, however. Especially if it is a freedom that Christ has promised me all along.

Some of my testimony I put in some very lengthy comments I made on a well-known Christian author's website, where he had a post that was reviewing the controversial texts about women teaching and supposedly being silent in church (The 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 texts). Over the two and a half years since I wrote those lengthy comments giving a list of scriptural proofs against the artificial restrictions on women in church ministry, I have been steadily checking almost every day the number of views this post receives. To date, there have been 31,220 readings of those comments I made. Usually about 40 views every day. This tells me that this subject is one of continued soul-searching in the Christian community, which is a good sign. Other than the well-known Christian author's negative responses, I do not know how those comments of mine are being received by others, since no one has offered a single rebuttal of them since I finished posting them. If anyone is interested in a link to those scriptural proofs I gave, I can supply that here if requested.