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

[KitKat1230]

I know that blogs and figures like The Transformed Wife, Mrs. Midwest, and Roosh V are still popular, and complementarianism is still popular within much of mainstream Christianity. But I've noticed that since the Josh Duggar and Doug Phillips scandals, the #MeToo movement, and many people's breaking their silence on sexual abuse, misconduct, and misogyny within the patriarchy movement, that the movement has lost significant influence.

Is it possible that maybe these movements are losing power, or is their power and influence just harder to see because of how egalitarian and/or feminist mainstream Christianity is becoming?

 

[Sabertooth]

I reject Man-driven patriarchy, but I think that the ideal is found somewhere between egalitarianism & complementarianism.

Is it possible that maybe these movements are losing power, or is their power and influence just harder to see because of how egalitarian and/or feminist mainstream Christianity is becoming?

I think that the Church is moving away from legalism, generally, of which patriarchy is a subset. (Secular feminism, if successful, would swing the pendulum to the other extreme.)

 

[Gregorikos]

Is it possible that maybe these movements are losing power, or is their power and influence just harder to see because of how egalitarian and/or feminist mainstream Christianity is becoming?

I would answer your subject line, "yes. I believe complementarianism is losing, we are winning and will win, and I get the sense that we are gaining momentum."

However, your last paragraph above gives me pause. Because I think there is some truth to that as well. Even though we have gains and momentum, I don't foresee complementarianism being entirely eradicated in our lifetimes. If all women would unite against it, we would see complementarianism demolished by Christmas. But there are too many women in deception, and too many with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for that to happen.

 

[Gregorikos]

I reject Man-driven patriarchy, but I think that the ideal is found somewhere between egalitarianism & complementarianism.

I think that the Church is moving away from legalism, generally, of which patriarchy is a subset. (Secular feminism, if successful, would swing the pendulum to the other extreme.)

I'm sorry, I just don't believe there is middle ground between the two. You either believe that women are equal with men in terms of substance and value, privilege and responsibility, function and authority in all areas of life, including marriage, ministry, leadership and business...... or you don't.

If you believe that women are equal, you are an egalitarian. If you don't, you are a complementarian of one degree or another.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm sorry, I just don't believe there is middle ground between the two. You either believe that women are equal with men in terms of substance and value, privilege and responsibility, function and authority in all areas of life, including marriage, ministry, leadership and business...... or you don't.

If you believe that women are equal, you are an egalitarian. If you don't, you are a complementarian of one degree or another.

Did you read my rationale?

 

[Gregorikos]

Did you read my rationale?

Yes, but that doesn't change my views. We're either equal or we're not. A friend wrote this a few hours ago, and it sums it up nicely:

We're equal, BUT . . .
We're equal, but you don't need respect.
We're equal, but you need to be quiet.
We're equal, but you need to submit.
We're equal, but I'm your head.
We're equal, but you can't lead.
We're equal, but you can't teach.
We're equal, but I have authority over you.
We're equal, but you can't be an elder.
We're equal, but you can't be a pastor.
We're equal, but I'm your lord.
I get it now.
We're equal, but if there's a "but," we really aren't equal.

 

[Sabertooth]

We're equal, BUT . . .
We're equal, but you don't need respect.
We're equal, but you need to be quiet.
We're equal, but you need to submit.
We're equal, but I'm your head.
We're equal, but you can't lead.
We're equal, but you can't teach.
We're equal, but I have authority over you.
We're equal, but you can't be an elder.
We're equal, but you can't be a pastor.
We're equal, but I'm your lord.
I get it now.
We're equal, but if there's a "but," we really aren't equal.

Does that match the rationale that I described?

 

[Gregorikos]

Does that match the rationale that I described?

To be honest, your rationale doesn't make much sense to me and doesn't address the issues as I see them. Perhaps some clarifying questions will help us get on the same page.

1. What are the "clearly complementarian features" you see in the Bible?


2. How does your answer to question 1 not make you a complementarian?

 

[Sabertooth]

1. What are the "clearly complementarian features" you see in the Bible?

1. Some parts are written specifically to men/husbands.
2. Other parts are written specifically to women/wives.

2. How does your answer to question 1 not make you a complementarian?

It is not wrong to recognize gender-specific Scriptures.
What IS wrong is when men try to make women conform to #2 on men's terms (or vice-versa).

Under the grace of the Holy Spirit, I am beholden to men-specific and gender-neutral Scriptures.
Under the same grace, my wife is beholden to women-specific and gender-neutral Scriptures.

Neither of us can impose a time table on the other. We are not the standard for each other.

That mutual expression of grace IS a form of egalitarianism, even if walking out our faith promises to be, like our bodies, sexually dimorphic.

 

[Gregorikos]

1. Some parts are written specifically to men/husbands.
2. Other parts are written specifically to women/wives.

It is not wrong to recognize gender-specific Scriptures.

That is true. Men and women are different, and even complimentary. Often where one is weak, the other is strong. But Egalitarians believe that. See Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy

The question is, is there a hierarchy? Are they different in authority and agency? Do you see Biblically mandated "roles" that differ for men and women?

If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, you are a complementarian of one sort or another.

 

[Sabertooth]

The question is, is there a hierarchy?

Some verses suggest that there is a hierarchy, but it is activated by internal conviction, not by external compulsion.

For instance, Paul wrote,
"Let your women keep silent in the churches,
for they are not permitted to speak;
but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
And if they want to learn something,
let them ask their own husbands at home;
for it is shameful for women to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 NKJV

Women are left with two choices,

1. Tear it out of their Bibles altogether, or
2. Find a context where it fits with the rest of their Bibles. (That's the Holy Spirit's job.)

Patriarch[ist?]s are [all too] quick to argue against women teaching or preaching using the above as proof text.

They neglect,

• "...Your sons and daughters will prophesy,..." [Acts of the Apostles 2:17]
  
• that Paul's friend, Priscilla, taught Apollos [Acts of the Apostles 18:26],
• and certainly more.

Ephesians 5:22-24 is another passage where a woman has the same two choices. If she decides to "wrestle" with it, the Holy Spirit will convey His intentions in a way that is fitting in His relationship with her.

A man (even if saved) is not graced to interpret its intentions on her behalf. (We have our hands full with Ephesians 5:25-29.)

As each allows the Holy Spirit to bring these home in their lives --not demanding that the other change first-- He brings about a complementary, and peaceable, relationship between them.

Even if only one of them chases after God's best, he or she will be blessed because of it.

Patriarchists (and their female counterparts) cannot bring this about by beating their spouses over the head with their Bibles. That is very Pharisaical (Apostle Paul excepted ).

 

[Direct Driver]

I think there are those trying to get rid of complementarianism, but it can't hold. In the end, truth wins. Men and women are physiologically different. It's not something that we "learn" through culture. Rather, it's something that successful culture embraces. It's how we are designed. I consider "Patriarchy" to be related but different.

Men and women are quite literally designed to be good at certain roles and they truly do compliment each other. "Patriarchy" can work with that or it can turn men and women into a "master/slave" relationship. The latter is "less than ideal", to put it mildly.

But complementarianism is based on biology. Denyhing it denies the differences, strengths and weaknesses inherent in the sexes.

30 years ago I used this example: Dodge made a v10 engine that it put in its viper and its flagship pickup truck. Though the engine was identical, they were tuned differently to bring different strengths to the table. So here's the analogy:

Men are the pickup and women are the sports car. People that want to make men and women "the same" (as opposed to "equal"), want to take that pickup, drop the suspension, put big, wide low profile tires on it and call it a sports car. Meanwhile, they want to take the Viper, jack it up, throw on some thick meaty offroad tires and four wheel drive, and put a cute little "box" in place of the rear window so it can "haul stuff".

So the viper becomes a lousy sports car and a poor excuse for a pickup truck and the pickup becomes a lousy pickup truck and a poor excuse for a sports car.

Meanwhile, the reality is that the pickup truck is what you want when you want to load a cord of wood or pull a stump. And the Viper is what you want when you want to take an exhilarating ride through the twisties of Tennessee on a beautiful spring day.

When I want to get in touch with my feminine side, I reach for my wife. And my wife reaches for me when she wants to get in touch with her masculine side. We revel in our differences and depend on each other accordingly.

Believing and acting on the idea that men and women are "the same" is the road to ruin, as many are actually learning.

 

[Gregorikos]

Some verses suggest that there is a hierarchy, but it is activated by internal conviction, not by external compulsion.

A self-imposed hierarchy is still a hierarchy. You are arguing against egalitarianism.

I asked you three questions. You only answered one of them. Here again are the other two:

1. Are men and women different in authority and agency?

2. Do you see Biblically mandated "roles" that differ for men and women?

 

[Sabertooth]

A self-imposed hierarchy is still a hierarchy.

"Self-imposed" is a significant difference.

 

[Gregorikos]

I think there are those trying to get rid of complementarianism, but it can't hold. In the end, truth wins. Men and women are physiologically different. It's not something that we "learn" through culture. Rather, it's something that successful culture embraces. It's how we are designed. I consider "Patriarchy" to be related but different.

Men and women are quite literally designed to be good at certain roles and they truly do compliment each other. "Patriarchy" can work with that or it can turn men and women into a "master/slave" relationship. The latter is "less than ideal", to put it mildly.

But complementarianism is based on biology. Denyhing it denies the differences, strengths and weaknesses inherent in the sexes.

30 years ago I used this example: Dodge made a v10 engine that it put in its viper and its flagship pickup truck. Though the engine was identical, they were tuned differently to bring different strengths to the table. So here's the analogy:

Men are the pickup and women are the sports car. People that want to make men and women "the same" (as opposed to "equal"), want to take that pickup, drop the suspension, put big, wide low profile tires on it and call it a sports car. Meanwhile, they want to take the Viper, jack it up, throw on some thick meaty offroad tires and four wheel drive, and put a cute little "box" in place of the rear window so it can "haul stuff".

So the viper becomes a lousy sports car and a poor excuse for a pickup truck and the pickup becomes a lousy pickup truck and a poor excuse for a sports car.

Meanwhile, the reality is that the pickup truck is what you want when you want to load a cord of wood or pull a stump. And the Viper is what you want when you want to take an exhilarating ride through the twisties of Tennessee on a beautiful spring day.

When I want to get in touch with my feminine side, I reach for my wife. And my wife reaches for me when she wants to get in touch with her masculine side. We revel in our differences and depend on each other accordingly.

Believing and acting on the idea that men and women are "the same" is the road to ruin, as many are actually learning.

"Complementarianism" means something specific. It doesn't merely mean men and women are different. Everyone believes that. Rather, it has to do with hierarchy, authority, and agency. Complementarianism is the new name chosen for patriarchy by John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Mary Kassian. It refers to "gender roles" in which women have restrictions placed on them for what they may do in the church, and are placed on a lower level of authority than the husband in the home.

It isn't based on biology or any other branch of science. It's based on the notion that women are inferior to men.

 

[Paidiske]

About the OP's question, I am not sure. We have come so far, but the backlash is bitter and seems very strong at times.

I think, for example, of the diocese of the Anglican church in which I was ordained. When I started my training, it was ordaining men and women in about equal numbers. Now, about fifteen years later, the proportion of women being ordained has dropped markedly, some years to less than a third of the ordinands. This seems to be driven by lack of support at the grass roots, where vocation is nurtured and people are encouraged to offer for ordination... or not.

Men and women are quite literally designed to be good at certain roles ...

This is a stereotype, and like all stereotypes is only a generalisation. There are men and women who don't fit the stereotypical profile of strengths and so on, and they shouldn't be forced into roles for which they are not a good fit.

 

[Direct Driver]

"Complementarianism" means something specific. It doesn't merely mean men and women are different. Everyone believes that. Rather, it has to do with hierarchy, authority, and agency. Complementarianism is the new name chosen for patriarchy by John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Mary Kassian. It refers to "gender roles" in which women have restrictions placed on them for what they may do in the church, and are placed on a lower level of authority than the husband in the home.

It isn't based on biology or any other branch of science. It's based on the notion that women are inferior to men.

Well then, I stand corrected. Anything based on the premise that women are inferior to men is not only seriously flawed but has never been acceptable. They are "generally" both inferior and superior depending on what we're talking about. To use a silly example, I can chop more firewood than my wife.

 

[KitKat1230]

I would answer your subject line, "yes. I believe complementarianism is losing, we are winning and will win, and I get the sense that we are gaining momentum."

However, your last paragraph above gives me pause. Because I think there is some truth to that as well. Even though we have gains and momentum, I don't foresee complementarianism being entirely eradicated in our lifetimes. If all women would unite against it, we would see complementarianism demolished by Christmas. But there are too many women in deception, and too many with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for that to happen.

I don't see it going away anytime soon either. Honestly, I believe I could have worded this question much better. I think complementarianism is still very much a thing in Christianity and I don't have a problem with complementarianism in most regards. I've just noticed some changes in regards to gender in Christianity, some for the better and some not.

 

[Direct Driver]

I don't see it going away anytime soon either. Honestly, I believe I could have worded this question much better. I think complementarianism is still very much a thing in Christianity and I don't have a problem with complementarianism in most regards. I've just noticed some changes in regards to gender in Christianity, some for the better and some not.

I think that as long as men and women are physiologically different, there will be those that use this to support the "practice" of complementarianism.

I think it is human nature to gravitate towards believing that if someone is different than you, they just might be better than you, and the defense against that is either covert or overt racism/sexism. The more adult a person is, the less likely they are to go there, though.

I will say this about that, though, and it has nothing to do with who is "better": When I was in sales in the 70's, I was VERY successful. I won a ton of sales contests. I actually gave classes to my co-workers on how to treat and speak to men vs women - at least at first until you get a feel for the attributes of the individual. Same with all other attributes, e.g. age, attire, etc.

When it comes to cultural stuff, the bible speaks in generalities. I think it's a mistake to take those generalities literally. Rather, they are instruction to someone that may be young and is still trying to grasp concepts that people over 40 understand as simply a part of how human culture works.

To use something I figured out at Boeing 21 years ago: There are three types of managers.
1. "By the book" managers. They get to first or maybe second level management and that's it. They are not decision makers. They do what "the rules" say, even when individual cases may need a "creative" response. I once read a story about a scientist being amazed watching ants excavate an ant hill. They would take a piece of dirt and walk it ten inches from the hole and drop it, and go back for more. He thought that was "intelligence". But then he saw them digging out an entrance in a vertical rotten tree and, though they could have just stuck their head out and dropped the dirt to the ground, they walked out ten inches from the hole and dropped it. They were not using intelligence. They were using pre-programming and nothing more. They were not decision makers.
2. Managers that break the rules at the wrong time. They get fired.
3. Managers that use the rule book as a guide, but take risks and sometimes break the rules because they "intelligently decide" that following the rules would not be the correct course of action in certain situations, and those decisions help the company "bigly". They become CEO's.

I aspire to be like number 3. I'm an imager of God (as we all are). He gave me a rule book (the bible) as a guide, but also a brain, which is exemplary at making decisions. When all you do is what the rules say, you're not really a decision maker.

But that is also "next level" thinking.

 

[Gregorikos]

I don't see it going away anytime soon either. Honestly, I believe I could have worded this question much better. I think complementarianism is still very much a thing in Christianity and I don't have a problem with complementarianism in most regards. I've just noticed some changes in regards to gender in Christianity, some for the better and some not.

Being that complementarianism is merely patriarchy by another name, and patriarchy is a result of the fall according to Genesis 3:16, I do have a problem with it the same way I have a problem with painful childbirth and struggling to feed ourselves by the sweat of our brow. There isn't any other thing that happened that day that we don't seek to alleviate, and patriarchy should be no exception. It is an enemy like sin, sickness, and death.

Adam and Eve had a perfect world. They fell, the earth was cursed, and they were cast from the garden. In the very next chaper of the Bible we see: distrust (Gen 4:3) anger (v 5) disappointment (v5) murder (v8) deceit (v9) despair (v13) fear (v14) apostasy (v16) polygamy (v19) and revenge (v 23-24)

NONE of that is any good, and so-called complementarianism isn't either, because it is part and parcel with everything else above. But it will be defeated because God is out to redeem this world and he never loses!