I wholeheartedly agree, the terms (and the related industries built around their opposing tribes) need to be put out to pasture. My wife and I came up in (separate) complementarian churches, and when we got married we found that the attending marriage “roles” for that position were, in practice, silly.
After a few years of assessing our own positions we can to the belief that Scripture doesn’t ultimately limit the ordination of pastors to men only, but we didn’t like the term “egalitarian” because it seems to flatten out the distinctions between men and women, who need each others unique qualities, not only in marriage but in ministry as well. One could say that they “complement” one another, but apparently that word is taken, so we’ve just thrown out the terms altogether.
Also, my wife is now a pastor now, and it in no way changed her ontological value. So thanks for that little gem of a reflection.
Thanks for this post. I wholeheartedly agree with you on every point. You provide a very fair treatment of both sides of this genuinely stupid debate. I only say it is "stupid" because we aren't talking about words that have been used for centuries in church history, but are debating very recent words (at least as it pertains to "complementarian" coined by Piper and Grudem).
Personally, during the height of my theological formation, all I drank was the complementarian kool-aid. I've been about a year or so into my journey away from that "tribe", but my journey is not leading me toward egalitarianism (and especially not patriarchy).
I plan on writing a post on this soon, but it's more of a post with more questions than answers or statements.
Thanks for your thoughts here! They provide more for me to chew on.
I’ve been in this place for so long. I grew up in an Evangelical Charismatic household where the complementarian view was pushed but not practiced. I’ve met women from both sides. It is something that shouldn’t be dividing us. I’m going through Seminary right now and some Christians don’t even believe I should be doing that so this is an issue in a larger discussion that needs to happen. Semantics.
You are spot on. I have what I believe strong theological reasons for limitinf the priesthood/pastoral office to qualified men. I think those link in some way to types of preaching and teaching. And of course men and women compliment each other. But to say that this means that women and men can be somehow squeezed through these convictions into an whole life umbrella of "manhood" and "womanhood", whether restrictive and authoritarian or free and formless, is an incredible leap.
I read the book within the last year, and found it a helpful book... but the approach is different. I would guess that Dr. Sanders did not feel it was a great book because Dr. Sanders has already developed a very solid theological anthropology herself, and has trained fully in theology; she is already also effectively engaging in a 'non-polarizing manner', in a discussion that has become more polarized and prominent since Dr. Lee-Barnwell's book was published (although the polarization today has become worse; so that even when Dr. Sanders is careful in her choice of words, she can get 'blowback' from some; which is both painful and ironic to observe!). I am looking forward to Dr. Sander's book, when she publishes it.. in the meantime, I am here, reading what she posts :)
I see value in Dr. Lee-Barnwell's book, which seeks to reframe a polarized debate toward an edifying discussion, by stepping back and considering gender issues as subordinate to Kingdom issues, but let me allow the author to speak for herself:
"A principal point of this book is that more transcendent kingdom concerns can profoundly challenge how we view the current debate. For example, Paul asserts that the critical topic is not our rights, important as they are, but how the giving up of rights can be necessary for the gospel and for the sake of unity (e.g., 1 Cor. 9; Phil. 2:1–11). While rights can be a legitimate issue, there is a kingdom value that supersedes rights and is more representative of kingdom ways. On the other side, the gospel redefines considerations of power and authority in terms of humility, sacrifice, and suffering, not simply as qualifiers but as essential components, even starting points. I suspect that the full implications of Christ’s example of giving up the benefits of his status for our sake are yet to be discovered. Thus this study seeks to provide the rationale for enlarging our perspective by reconsidering gender according to categories that are more transcendent. In various ways God is presenting a witness to the world through the life of the church, called to unity and holiness, and so issues of rights, authority, individual benefit, and duties must flow out of this larger understanding. As a result, we may gain new insights on old topics as we interact with essential kingdom themes that speak of our corporate identity in Christ in the new age and how the church is to glorify God as the body of Christ."
Lee-Barnewall, Michelle. Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate (pp. 13-14). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I recommend the book, and would suggest, that if you read it, you 'set aside' the current debate over complementarianism and egalitarianism, and look at this book as the author describes it, a book that seeks to focus on what is clearly central in the mission of Jesus, the establishment of His New Kingdom. Defining that framework first, and separately from the framework of the present polarization, is essential then, to considering the 'egalitarian-complementarian' debate as something secondary to understanding our place as men and women, within this New kingdom.
Dr. Lee-Barnwell's book is also helpful in 'filling in some history' that is very helpful and worth 'having in the back of our mind' as we consider the present debate. what brought this issue to the fore, in American culture and the reactive response of American christianity?
"...even when Dr. Sanders is careful in her choice of words, she can get 'blowback' from some; which is both painful and ironic to observe!" is right. I have a lot of respect for people who spend years studying in a realm and wade into the online waters with that background. The results from readers is always interesting. :)
Thanks for the comment. I've gotten the feeling over the years that these labels are entirely overreaching and unhelpful. (I even spent several formative years at the church of one of the writers of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood!) So Kirsten's concise post here names well the annoying itches I've had for years regarding precision of language and broadness of theological vision that's made me want to ignore the conversation all together. But that's probably not the best route, either. :)
I would agree both terms are unhelpful. I think that is because they were both formed as reactions to a time limited phenomenon, that of feminism. As such the terms neither reverberate back into the experience of the historical church, nor forward into the future. Speaking of the future, there is a desperate need for an orthodox theology of male and female, because the next generation is very confused on the topic and beginning inventing new doctrines. I recently heard a young preacher (late 20s) who identified as complementation, claim in all seriousness from the pulpit that Christ had to come because Adam didn't die for Eve's sin.
I wholeheartedly agree, the terms (and the related industries built around their opposing tribes) need to be put out to pasture. My wife and I came up in (separate) complementarian churches, and when we got married we found that the attending marriage “roles” for that position were, in practice, silly.
After a few years of assessing our own positions we can to the belief that Scripture doesn’t ultimately limit the ordination of pastors to men only, but we didn’t like the term “egalitarian” because it seems to flatten out the distinctions between men and women, who need each others unique qualities, not only in marriage but in ministry as well. One could say that they “complement” one another, but apparently that word is taken, so we’ve just thrown out the terms altogether.
Also, my wife is now a pastor now, and it in no way changed her ontological value. So thanks for that little gem of a reflection.
Kirsten,
Thanks for this post. I wholeheartedly agree with you on every point. You provide a very fair treatment of both sides of this genuinely stupid debate. I only say it is "stupid" because we aren't talking about words that have been used for centuries in church history, but are debating very recent words (at least as it pertains to "complementarian" coined by Piper and Grudem).
Personally, during the height of my theological formation, all I drank was the complementarian kool-aid. I've been about a year or so into my journey away from that "tribe", but my journey is not leading me toward egalitarianism (and especially not patriarchy).
I plan on writing a post on this soon, but it's more of a post with more questions than answers or statements.
Thanks for your thoughts here! They provide more for me to chew on.
I’ve been in this place for so long. I grew up in an Evangelical Charismatic household where the complementarian view was pushed but not practiced. I’ve met women from both sides. It is something that shouldn’t be dividing us. I’m going through Seminary right now and some Christians don’t even believe I should be doing that so this is an issue in a larger discussion that needs to happen. Semantics.
You are spot on. I have what I believe strong theological reasons for limitinf the priesthood/pastoral office to qualified men. I think those link in some way to types of preaching and teaching. And of course men and women compliment each other. But to say that this means that women and men can be somehow squeezed through these convictions into an whole life umbrella of "manhood" and "womanhood", whether restrictive and authoritarian or free and formless, is an incredible leap.
Not a complementation but I find egalitarianism to be such an ideological project that breaks up too many distinctly Christian claims about the world.
Especially appreciative of number 6 and 10 here.
And "We will all benefit from greater precision in language" is how I've felt about this mess of modern terms for a while.
Is that book "Neither Complementation nor Egalitarian" worth picking up?
It’s been years since I’ve read this. I remember I did not feel that it was a great “book”, but I can’t recall the actual argument. 😇
I read the book within the last year, and found it a helpful book... but the approach is different. I would guess that Dr. Sanders did not feel it was a great book because Dr. Sanders has already developed a very solid theological anthropology herself, and has trained fully in theology; she is already also effectively engaging in a 'non-polarizing manner', in a discussion that has become more polarized and prominent since Dr. Lee-Barnwell's book was published (although the polarization today has become worse; so that even when Dr. Sanders is careful in her choice of words, she can get 'blowback' from some; which is both painful and ironic to observe!). I am looking forward to Dr. Sander's book, when she publishes it.. in the meantime, I am here, reading what she posts :)
I see value in Dr. Lee-Barnwell's book, which seeks to reframe a polarized debate toward an edifying discussion, by stepping back and considering gender issues as subordinate to Kingdom issues, but let me allow the author to speak for herself:
"A principal point of this book is that more transcendent kingdom concerns can profoundly challenge how we view the current debate. For example, Paul asserts that the critical topic is not our rights, important as they are, but how the giving up of rights can be necessary for the gospel and for the sake of unity (e.g., 1 Cor. 9; Phil. 2:1–11). While rights can be a legitimate issue, there is a kingdom value that supersedes rights and is more representative of kingdom ways. On the other side, the gospel redefines considerations of power and authority in terms of humility, sacrifice, and suffering, not simply as qualifiers but as essential components, even starting points. I suspect that the full implications of Christ’s example of giving up the benefits of his status for our sake are yet to be discovered. Thus this study seeks to provide the rationale for enlarging our perspective by reconsidering gender according to categories that are more transcendent. In various ways God is presenting a witness to the world through the life of the church, called to unity and holiness, and so issues of rights, authority, individual benefit, and duties must flow out of this larger understanding. As a result, we may gain new insights on old topics as we interact with essential kingdom themes that speak of our corporate identity in Christ in the new age and how the church is to glorify God as the body of Christ."
Lee-Barnewall, Michelle. Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate (pp. 13-14). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I recommend the book, and would suggest, that if you read it, you 'set aside' the current debate over complementarianism and egalitarianism, and look at this book as the author describes it, a book that seeks to focus on what is clearly central in the mission of Jesus, the establishment of His New Kingdom. Defining that framework first, and separately from the framework of the present polarization, is essential then, to considering the 'egalitarian-complementarian' debate as something secondary to understanding our place as men and women, within this New kingdom.
Dr. Lee-Barnwell's book is also helpful in 'filling in some history' that is very helpful and worth 'having in the back of our mind' as we consider the present debate. what brought this issue to the fore, in American culture and the reactive response of American christianity?
"...even when Dr. Sanders is careful in her choice of words, she can get 'blowback' from some; which is both painful and ironic to observe!" is right. I have a lot of respect for people who spend years studying in a realm and wade into the online waters with that background. The results from readers is always interesting. :)
Thanks for the comment. I've gotten the feeling over the years that these labels are entirely overreaching and unhelpful. (I even spent several formative years at the church of one of the writers of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood!) So Kirsten's concise post here names well the annoying itches I've had for years regarding precision of language and broadness of theological vision that's made me want to ignore the conversation all together. But that's probably not the best route, either. :)
I can take it 🤓
I would agree both terms are unhelpful. I think that is because they were both formed as reactions to a time limited phenomenon, that of feminism. As such the terms neither reverberate back into the experience of the historical church, nor forward into the future. Speaking of the future, there is a desperate need for an orthodox theology of male and female, because the next generation is very confused on the topic and beginning inventing new doctrines. I recently heard a young preacher (late 20s) who identified as complementation, claim in all seriousness from the pulpit that Christ had to come because Adam didn't die for Eve's sin.