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

[Direct Driver]

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!

To get "back to formula", I think we need to see men and women as equal, but celebrate the differences as well. My wife and I revel in the differences, and we most definitely see each other as equals - though we take on different roles in the relationship. Those roles align with our God given abilities that just "happen to" align with a few thousand years of human culture.

Jordan Peterson talks about what happen in a truly "egalitarian" culture. Women and men just naturally migrate to different roles. He uses Sweden as an example. When truly left to our own devises, men and women, generally speaking, migrate to different roles and are both over or under represented, depending on the roles. The exception would be childbirth. All people who give birth are, in fact, female. There are no exceptions. Zero.

 

[PloverWing]

To get "back to formula", I think we need to see men and women as equal, but celebrate the differences as well.

While we're celebrating differences, can we also celebrate differences within the genders? Celebrate the ways that men are different from one another, and the ways that women are different from one another? I think we need many more than two boxes for people.

When truly left to our own devises, men and women, generally speaking, migrate to different roles and are both over or under represented, depending on the roles.

This "generally speaking" is important, though. I have seen "Men generally are good at X, and women generally are good at Y" migrate to the commands "Men must do X and not Y, and women must do Y and not X", and then it's a problem. Sometimes it takes the form "Men who do Y aren't real men, and women who do X aren't real women".

All that is to say: Gender-based generalizations can be used to remind ourselves about the variety of human personalities -- Don't assume that everyone likes X, because lots of people like Y instead. But I've seen the generalizations become harmful when they become expectations for all men and women.

 

[Direct Driver]

While we're celebrating differences, can we also celebrate differences within the genders? Celebrate the ways that men are different from one another, and the ways that women are different from one another? I think we need many more than two boxes for people.

Though I agree, I think this thread is about those two boxes, specifically.

Frankly, I think there are as many "boxes" as there are people.

 

[Direct Driver]

This "generally speaking" is important, though. I have seen "Men generally are good at X, and women generally are good at Y" migrate to the commands "Men must do X and not Y, and women must do Y and not X", and then it's a problem. Sometimes it takes the form "Men who do Y aren't real men, and women who do X aren't real women".

All that is to say: Gender-based generalizations can be used to remind ourselves about the variety of human personalities -- Don't assume that everyone likes X, because lots of people like Y instead. But I've seen the generalizations become harmful when they become expectations for all men and women.

I completely agree with that. Take me. I got rid of television in my home in the late 20th century. I could not have done that if I was into pro and college sports. I couldn't care less about sports as something to watch, except for watching kids sports. I see it as something to do for fun. Some guys would say that is not "manly".

 

[PloverWing]

Though I agree, I think this thread is about those two boxes, specifically.

As I understand it, the thread is about whether the view that there are only two boxes, and that the people in one box should have power over the people in the other box, is still widely held among Christians, or whether that view is in decline.

Frankly, I think there are as many "boxes" as there are people.

I agree with you here!


As to the OP, I don't know what the statistics are. I teach at a state university and I worship at an Episcopal Church, so that tends to put me in a liberal bubble. But posts on CF remind me that complementarianism (and other forms of sexism) is alive and well in Christian churches.

 

[Direct Driver]

As I understand it, the thread is about whether the view that there are only two boxes, and that the people in one box should have power over the people in the other box, is still widely held among Christians, or whether that view is in decline.



I agree with you here!


As to the OP, I don't know what the statistics are. I teach at a state university and I worship at an Episcopal Church, so that tends to put me in a liberal bubble. But posts on CF remind me that complementarianism (and other forms of sexism) is alive and well in Christian churches.

I'm most definitely a sexist, in that I see men and women as different and treat them differently, at least at first meeting - a starting point. But I see us all as created as imagers of God and equal in his eyes, but different. Kinda like a parent with multiple children may love them all "equally" but understands that one is not very bright, while another is a math whiz but never gets chosen when sides are picked for a kids baseball game.

It is the "systemic" sexism that I bristle against. By "systemic" I mean sexism supported by "the system" as opposed to the sex (or race) beliefs held by individuals. We're all sexist, racist, ageist, etc., to one degree or another. To argue otherwise is to argue that men can be perfect. Perfection is the enemy of excellence - unless you are God, himself.

 

[Direct Driver]

I think the best real world example of this whole issue and why it may be more complicated - and more clear - than some want to make it is this simple question: Do you think men should be allowed to compete in women's sports?

I touch on that concept because it is not fair to try to make the argument that men are physically stronger than women, yet not believe that due to their different brain makeups they can also be superior to one another at certain "mental" and "emotional" activities.

Sure, it's a generalization, but then, the " men not allowed in women's sports" concept is also based on a generalization. And let's be frank, if men really ARE allowed to compete in women's sports, it is the end of women's sports. We would just have "sports". And there would be darned few women involved, except in stuff like sharpshooting.

I bring up a real concern regarding the whole concept. And it needs to be pointed out that the serpent did not deceive Adam. The serpent deceived Eve. It was Eve that deceived Adam. One can draw conclusions from that base on their sex, their relationship or that their sex was irrelevant. But the story is there for each of us to make of what we will.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hence the need for a league of their own w/o Tom Hanks lol jus kidding’

As far as Adam and Eve goes the new Adam places Eve as everyone of the church, which certainly makes sense all the way around.

 

[Direct Driver]

Hence the need for a league of their own w/o Tom Hanks lol jus kidding’

As far as Adam and Eve goes the new Adam places Eve as everyone of the church, which certainly makes sense all the way around.

There's no crying in baseball!

 

[Paidiske]

Though I agree, I think this thread is about those two boxes, specifically.

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 think the best real world example of this whole issue and why it may be more complicated - and more clear - than some want to make it is this simple question: Do you think men should be allowed to compete in women's sports?

I touch on that concept because it is not fair to try to make the argument that men are physically stronger than women, yet not believe that due to their different brain makeups they can also be superior to one another at certain "mental" and "emotional" activities.

Sure, it's a generalization, but then, the " men not allowed in women's sports" concept is also based on a generalization. And let's be frank, if men really ARE allowed to compete in women's sports, it is the end of women's sports. We would just have "sports". And there would be darned few women involved, except in stuff like sharpshooting.

I bring up a real concern regarding the whole concept. And it needs to be pointed out that the serpent did not deceive Adam. The serpent deceived Eve. It was Eve that deceived Adam. One can draw conclusions from that base on their sex, their relationship or that their sex was irrelevant. But the story is there for each of us to make of what we will.

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.

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.

 

[KitKat1230]

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!

I see. I guess because I had grown up in a complementarian-lite household (e.g. women can hold down jobs and do whatever they want within reason, but they cannot preach), I had always looked at the stuff like "women can't be preachers," "women can't teach men," and "the husband is the de-facto leader of the household" and always kind of tried to tell myself that "Hey, at least we allow women to be career-women as well as wives and mothers, unlike The Duggars" or "At least women can have sex with their husbands for pleasure and use birth control, not having to worry about having more babies than they can afford or want." But it's been getting harder for me to rationalize that in my head.

And I've been conflicted for a long time about these things. Because my parents and most of the Baptists I know don't believe women should preach. I think my problem is that I've been sitting on the fence for so long out of fear of upsetting the apple cart, rather than being open about my worries regarding gender roles.

 

[KitKat1230]

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)

And like I've mentioned on another thread, I have learned a lot about what it means to be a Christian egalitarian since I have been on this site. I think because the complementarianism, especially in American evangelicalism, is such a prominent doctrine, I've struggled to completely reprogram from that. And because I was worried about offending Christians who did hold to complementarianism (even if it is more narrow than broad), I guess that was why I was so worried about grouping complementarianism with the more extreme forms of Christian patriarchy. But now I'm becoming more aware of it and of other troubling trends in evangelicalism like outright and internalized white supremacist views, Trumpism, the tendency to focus on one or two issues rather than the many issues, etc.

And I have worried about complementarianism in the past. This idea that wives need to answer to their husbands just because of their reproductive organs and chromosomes, things far beyond either spouse's control. And your response and others' responses have helped me see that patriarchy is a curse, not a gift.

 

[hedrick]

To get "back to formula", I think we need to see men and women as equal, but celebrate the differences as well. My wife and I revel in the differences, and we most definitely see each other as equals - though we take on different roles in the relationship. Those roles align with our God given abilities that just "happen to" align with a few thousand years of human culture.

It's true. But there are two issues in moving from this to complementarianism.

1) It's true only on average. There are plenty of couples where the husband and wife have at least some roles that aren't the traditional ones.

2) Complementarianism isn't just saying that men and women tend to do things differently. It's saying that leadership, both in the family and church, is always associated with men.

In principle I have no problem at all with saying that men and women tend to have complementary skills. But we all know that's not what complementarianism really is. It's a polite way of saying that women aren't allowed to be leaders.

The problem with saying that leadership is always with men is that there are different ways to be a leader. Even if all men and women acted in traditional ways -- and they don't and don't need to -- the traditional female preferences and skills are just as useful for leaders. Indeed I would argue that in the Presbyterian tradition, we're a lot better with a mix of male and female elders and pastors, precisely because on average they tend to bring different strengths.

 

[Gregorikos]

And like I've mentioned on another thread, I have learned a lot about what it means to be a Christian egalitarian since I have been on this site. I think because the complementarianism, especially in American evangelicalism, is such a prominent doctrine, I've struggled to completely reprogram from that. And because I was worried about offending Christians who did hold to complementarianism (even if it is more narrow than broad), I guess that was why I was so worried about grouping complementarianism with the more extreme forms of Christian patriarchy. But now I'm becoming more aware of it and of other troubling trends in evangelicalism like outright and internalized white supremacist views, Trumpism, the tendency to focus on one or two issues rather than the many issues, etc.

And I have worried about complementarianism in the past. This idea that wives need to answer to their husbands just because of their reproductive organs and chromosomes, things far beyond either spouse's control. And your response and others' responses have helped me see that patriarchy is a curse, not a gift.

A complementarian marriage can be a good marriage. To the degree that the husband is like Christ, it can be wonderful. But a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. Why should we tolerate an imbalance of power in a relationship?

 

[hedrick]

And your response and others' responses have helped me see that patriarchy is a curse, not a gift.

That's certainly an obvious way to read Gen 3:16.

 

[Sabertooth]

It's a polite way of saying that women aren't allowed to be leaders.

I only hear that in patriarchy, not in complementarianism. (I think some use the latter as a euphemism, though.)

 

[Gregorikos]

I only hear that in patriarchy, not in complementarianism. (I think some use the latter as a euphemism, though.)

If there is a difference between patriarchy and complementarianism, neither one has women at the decision making table in churches. Women cannot occupy the positions of senior pastor or elder, and most often cannot be a pastor at any level because they believe women are excluded from church leadership.

 

[Paidiske]

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

 

[Sabertooth]

If there is a difference between patriarchy and complementarianism, neither one has women at the decision making table in churches.

Do you know what a euphemism is?

Women cannot occupy the positions of senior pastor or elder, and most often cannot be a pastor at any level because they believe women are excluded from church leadership.

In my church, when one person is called to the five-fold ministries, their spouse is, too.

So, your (continued) objection has not been my experience.

 

[Paidiske]

In my church, when one person is called to the five-fold ministries, their spouse is, too.

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.