Perilous Patriarchy?

In an article from Sojourners Magazine by Anne Eggebroten entitled The Persistence of Patriarchy, we see the argument against complementarianism taken to its logical conclusion. "What is complementarianism?" you may ask. Theopedia describes it as "the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are created to complement each other via different roles in life and in the church." They go on to say, "It is rooted in more literal interpretations of the Creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture." The Sojourners article is raising the flag. "How can this kind of nonsense still exist in the church of the 21st century??!!"

The word, complementarianism, is rooted in the concept of the complement. Not to be confused with the compliment (saying something nice about someone), a complement is achieved when two (or more) parts, put together, make up a complete whole. Like a key and a lock, these parts together fill what was lacking separately. And the complementarian view of male and female is that men are different than women and that each is made to complement the other so that together they make a whole.

It's opposite would be egalitarianism, a movement "based on the theological view that not only are all people equal before God in their personhood, but there are no gender-based limitations of what functions or roles each can fulfill in the home, the church, and the society." While complementarianism is the historical position of the Church, egalitarianism is fairly new, not really hitting the market of ideas until the late 19th century. They derive their views from a variety of passages, but the "home run" verse is from Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28).

Well, there it is, clear as day! How could you not conclude that there are no gender-based limitations on roles in the home or the church? Silly complementarians!

This interpretation, unfortunately, is catastrophic. Starting simply from the premise that the Bible cannot contradict itself ... it does. Paul clearly says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Tim 2:12). He is making a distinction between men and women. If Paul was arguing in Galatians 3 that there is no distinction, then we can either conclude that he was schizophrenic, or that something else is amiss here. Now if that was the only place that such distinctions occurred, perhaps we could say, "Well, it's one verse." It's not. He says in 1 Corinthians "Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission" (1 Cor 14:34). Again, an unavoidable distinction between men and women here. And he does it twice. Here women should "keep silent" and "be in submission". "Okay," we say, "two verses. But still ..." Wait. It keeps coming up. He says that overseers must be "the husband of one wife", precluding the possibility of female elders. He tells wives to submit to their husbands. In fact, so often does Paul draw these kinds of distinctions between men and women that many regard Paul as a misogynist. "Paul hates women!"

Okay, so there is a pile of Scripture that draws distinctions between the roles (not value) of men and women. What are we to do with that? I mean, there's that whole Galatians 3 thing going on. What do we do now? Well, there are a couple of approaches out there. The egalitarian approach is to start with that reading of the verse in Galatians 3 and work from there. "Given," they would say, "that there is no distinction between male and female in Christ ..." and then they work through the "pile of Scripture" I mentioned. "Maybe Paul didn't write it." As Anne Eggebroten put it, "You must ignore evidence that the 'pastoral epistles' (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were written in honor of Paul long after he died and reflect a second-century debate over women’s roles in the church—whether to conform to social customs for the sake of winning converts, or to advocate radical social equality (and often celibacy) in the last days before the Second Coming." So, you see, you can't really trust those. Or, maybe, Paul wrote those things ... but he was wrong. Or maybe it's your understanding of the Bible that is in question. You see, our translations use terms like "submit" and "headship", but it doesn't really mean that. It's simply a failure of modern interpretation. All of these take a low view of Scripture. More common is this one: "That was then; this is now." You see, back then women didn't have the independence, the status, or the education they have now. That was necessary back then. It's not now. Unfortunately (for that view), Paul sources his reasons for making such statements, and he doesn't do it in the culture of his day. Both in 1 Cor 11 and in 1 Tim 2, Paul says that the reason for this whole complementarianism idea and the differences in roles of men and women was due to his literal interpretation of Genesis ... that Adam was created first and then Eve, and that God created them equal in value and importance, but different in roles and responsibilities. (Note: The argument of culture has a serious flaw. "Women weren't allowed in those roles in those days" doesn't hold water. In those days there was a glut of priestesses in a whole variety of religions. While that culture may have had a different view of women than we do today, it is not true that the culture would not allow a woman to be in authority, especially in matters of religion.)

Feminism has made its inroads into Christendom. Feminism differs slightly from egalitarianism because feminism couldn't care less about Scripture while egalitarians are basing their argument on Scripture. Still, errors from worldviews that are not biblical can creep into a Christian worldview unawares and we can get very confused. So, please note, the topic of Galatians 3 is not the roles of men and women. It isn't about church polity. It isn't about marriage or society. It's about salvation. Paul is arguing that we're saved by faith (3:6). He's arguing that faith makes us partakers of the promise to Abraham (3:16). He's arguing that all in Christ are sons of God (3:26). Verse 28, then, is simply saying that salvation is not about Jew or Greek. It isn't about slave or free, or male or female. It's about faith. Salvation is the same to all -- through faith -- and we are all of value in Christ. On the other hand, if you're going to reject that simple, contextual explanation, you put at peril any reasonable respect for the Bible. And that would only be the start of the problems you'll encounter.