Monday, November 22, 2010

'thick' and 'thin' complementarianism

This is worth thinking about.

It is worth examining that convictional pattern just a little. The label ‘complementarian’ has been given to those who believe that there New Testament does place a restriction on roles for women in the church’s ministry. However, there are those who extrapolate from the evidence of the New Testament to a full theory of gender roles grounded in the creation perhaps in the very being of God himself. This is then a ‘thick’ description of complementarianism. A ‘thin’ complementarianism is wary of ontological statements and wants to uphold the profound equality of human beings expressed through the difference of roles indicated in Scripture. It would be accurate to say that most Sydney Anglicans are ‘thin’ complementarians in the sense that they don’t seek to import some view of the essential difference between men and women in the way that some American complementarians have. The risk of a ‘thin’ position is that it seems incomplete. It invites ‘thickening’. After all, as a broad cultural phenomenon we can see how fascinated people are with gender and how confused they are about manhood and womanhood. And yet, thickening the description of gender difference beyond the scope of Scripture may result in a coagulated mess.

Are you thick or thin (or something else entirely)?

45 comments:

  1. The terms are loaded. Who wants to be thought of as thick, after all? Don't we ALL want to be thin? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I will not comment on posts on gender. I will not comment on posts on gender. I will not....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read Michael's post and thought it was really helpful.

    I am definitely not thick. I am very uncomfortable with the trinity being smuggled into arguments about gender.

    I really don't know how it's happened actually.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it sets up a valuable continuum to describe the various positions held within the comp camp. That Blogging Parson writes good stuff.

    I am egal light or thin, if you like.

    * I think there is some complementarity between the genders, but think it is dangerous to attach prescribed cultural roles to that - and, also hierarchy (I know. I am a child of the enlightment. A victim of the historical-critical method). I do think that women can teach to mixed assemblies as I take Paul's direction as more of a corrective (as outlined by, for example, Ben Witherington).

    *I think the comp slogan is woeful, particulary when it is followed by a list of things that women can't do. And it seems to assume that whilst men and women are DIFFERENT, all men and all women are all the same. But that might just be the linguistic limitations of sloganing.

    * Smuggling the trinity into this makes me want to weep. Michael Bird has a good paper on this. It's not necessary. It makes me think, in my cynical heart, that neither of the 'thick' positions have got the goods, biblically speaking.

    * And a bit of grrrrr... stop demoting Deborah. So much for a plain reading of the text. She was a leader. She was not a leader who submitted to the leadership of others, but a respectful servant to those around her. I mean, contextualise it all you like - Barak may well have been a Big Girl's Blouse and all, but she was what she was. Leave it be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A kind of thick, I think, from the two categories that Michael has given us. But I think there are better and worse ways of explaining it.

    The basic problem with the 'thin' approach is that it tends to make God look arbitrary - he could have just as easily said 'flat relationships' or 'matriarchy' as the operating procedures. The structure has no intrinsic relationship to gender. It's a theologically minimalist way of reading the texts - a way we eschew on most other important topics, where we seek to understand the implicit connections.

    As far as the Trinity issue goes, it really depends on what people are arguing against. If the Godhead has no experience of authority and submission in any sense in their interpersonal realtionship in eternity, then that has huge implications for what kind of relationships God seeks to set up in and with humanity.

    In some ways I think people who want to divide off the Trinity from this issue miss the point. This isn't really a debate about gender at the end of the day. It's really a debate about the nature and character of God. It's being driven by gender questions as the practical pointy end, but the real debate is over the Trinity.

    To just appeal directly to the Godhead and say, 'We should be like that' is daft. But it would be strange for God to have no experience of authority and submission in himself and yet seek to create a humanity which is shaped by such things. I think we can't avoid the indirect relationship between God and us on this, nor should we.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's right: the indirect relationship. That seems indisputable.

    Of course I have to say more about the 'thin' complementarian option to show that its not arbitrary - or that the contingency and cultural embeddness of gender as we express and experience it is not therefore the same as 'arbitrariness'.


    Is it 'really about' the Trinity? That's interesting. I am not sure it really is. I know people doing doctorates on the Trinity would like to think it is!! ;-) (just teasing, really!) I mean, the Trinity is a more important concept and all, but the Trinity has been wheeled on as a bit player to provide a bit of star quality in the gender debate. Only, its as if you got Cate Blanchett to star in your school play. She'd just overwhelm everything.

    Gender is where it hurts us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, "all about" is my way of saying that while gender is where it hurts us, the debate isn't really about gender. It's about love, equality, submission, authority. Egalitarians are opposed to the idea that equality and love are consistent with permanent and wide ranging relationships of authority and submission. Complementarians think they are complementary.

    And issues like that are ultimately going to be connected to our knowledge of God. So while the gender issue is the big practical question, I think that that question is changing people's doctrine of God (or expressing a pre-existing doctrine of God).

    So: 'can women do x?' is not about the Trinity.
    But: 'can I be equal and subordinate?' is ultimately "about" the Trinity. It's about the basic rules of reality.

    And in this debate the first question becomes the second fairly often.

    As for showing how the cultural embededness of gender is not arbitrary - I'm not sure what you mean there. So I'd either probably agree and see your 'thin' as my 'thick' - if you mean that there is a transcultural genderedness feature that always apply in at least some relational contexts but which will have quite different cultural features, or strongly disagree if you're saying that in some cultures 1 Tim 2 would have an opposite meaning than to its original readers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tick to 'a transcultural genderedness feature' ...I think! One man's thin is another's thick...

    I am eschewing in particular that version of comp that reads mid-West US cultural values as universal for ladies and fellas everywhere. Yuck to that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry Mark, vowed to stay out but can't let this go. "Equality" and "authority and submission" existing side by side empties both sets of terms of any meaning. In the terms of complementarianism, equality loses - women are equal in theory but not in any practical sense.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And we have a winner. :). Rather than swamp Simone's thread yet again, I might refer you to the long discussion under the third post in my recent series on Sola Panel that canvassed this issue among others that are related. Kristen Rosser and Teri ably defended your corner on this question, Jon, and you can read the outlines of my response there as well.

    But your comment is precisely why the Trinity keeps getting involved in this debate IMO. Because even though gender is where it hurts us (great phrase Michael), it's about so much more than just what women and men can and can't do and in what contexts.

    "Equality" and "authority and submission" existing side by side empties both sets of terms of any meaning.

    That is a stunningly huge claim that has implications for so much more than just the gender debate. And in addressing a claim of such a size, sooner or later people are going to correlate their views about the relationship (or non-relationship) of equality and authority to their knowledge of God.

    People who agree with Jon aren't going to happy with a view of God at odds with that, and people who disagree with Jon aren't going to be happy with a view of God that is grounded on such a conviction.

    I don't think the Trinity is being "smuggled" into this debate, I think ultimately all roads lead to that heavenly Rome once the questions get this big. And they have to get this big, because the egalitarian position is predicated on a view that complementarianism is defending a position that empties all the words of any meaning. The moral intuition involved here for egalitarians is pretty close to absolute.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Woops! That was me. Jennie just updated our blog and blogger logged me automatically. Apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let me test something though: just because for (some) egalitarians raise the stakes on the issue doesn't mean their terms have to be accepted, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes Mark, I don't want to go over the whole ground again. I think its a reasonable argument to suggest the Bible asks women to be subject to male authority in the church context - disagree myself, but see it as reasonable. I just don't think it makes sense to suggest that this is a form of equality.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Jon - yes, I know, that is the fairly standard egalitarian position. I know of almost no egalitarians who don't agree with you at this point. But I think that this needs careful attention.

    If you mean 'not equal' in the sense that one has authority and one doesn't (they aren't "social equals") then that's just another way of saying that one has authority and one doesn't.

    But if it is (and it almost always is) the idea that authority and substantial/ontological/essential (pick your term or make your own) equality cannot coexist with authority and submission then that is a huge idea with far reaching implications. I think it repudiates most Christian ethical thinking (and certainly the Reformer's understanding of the Priesthood of all Believers and its implications) in the 1800 years leading up to the Enlightenment.

    In my view that idea is like Michael's example of getting Cate Blanchett to star in Simone's High School Musical IV. That view about authority and equality overwhelms the gender debate.

    So, I agree you see it as that straightforward. I have yet to meet someone with your views on gender roles who doesn't see it that way. My point is simply, that's a big deal. Such a big deal that we need to make that a key part of the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Michael, no it doesn't.

    Although I don't think it is 'some' egalitarians. I've never yet met an egalitarian who thought that the idea that you can be equal ontologically and subordinate socially in an extensive and more or less permanent way was logically coherent.

    But not accepting the terms of that debate tends to mean doing what I see a lot of complementarians do - either just focus on the exegesis of the key passages, or do what you seemed to do in your gender post and argue that complementarianism is about transforming our notions of authority away from authoratarianism, but without ever addressing the egalitarian conviction that we're still speaking nonsense.

    I think accepting the terms of the debate as is there for egalitarians gives us the basis for doing some genuinely constructive theology about gender, authority, love, equality, and submission. In much the same way as the genuine advances in our understanding of the Godhead came by accepting the terms of the debate set up by Arius, of grace by accepting the terms of the debate set up by Pelagius, and of salvation by accepting the terms of the debate set up by medieval Catholicism.

    Sometimes the problem really is an opportunity, but to treat is as such you have to switch modes and deliberately articulate something far reaching and radical, not just mine the existing tradition for quick answers. It'll be both more 'thin' and more 'thick' than what we are seeing mostly at the moment.

    Unless this is really a question of minimal theological and ethical importance. Then it's just a distraction. But I haven't seen any evidence of that - the questions being posed by egalitarianism are simply huge IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree that the discussion about the nature of submission is crucial, Mark. And I think historically, any discussion of evangelicals and submission/subordination has to take a really hard look at what happened with the anti-slavery movement. This is because:
    1) Evangelical women REALLY got on board with abolitionism and in so doing they started to take on a whole lot of new roles in society. Through abolitionism, women got politically involved, through boycotts and petition-signing; women got up on public platforms and made speeches and women discovered their incredibly capacity to fund-raise. Women were undoubtedly the majority of the 'foot-soldiers' of abolitionism. (Did they get recognition for this? Nup, but that's another issue.) And when Wilberforce decided that it was unrealistic to call for absolute abolition of slavery in the British Empire and decided to adopt a 'gradual abolition' policy, the women's groups threatened to withdraw their funding - this would have meant the collapse of the movement, so absolute abolition it was.
    The significance of this, I think, is that from this point on, evangelical notions of what women could do in society and what women could do in the church began to divide radically. Women's suffrage became inevitable after this, in my opinion. And women began to experience this increasingly strange divide - where I can vote, become Prime Minister (theoretically!), lecture a mixed group of adults, run a major bank, but in church my roles are really proscribed.
    2) Perhaps more importantly, the abolition movement created a language for talking about subordination in human relationships which was adopted by evangelical women who were talking about the injustices experienced by women. The notion of women as the slaves of men became incredibly powerful for evangelical women's activism - from missionary work, to temperance, to suffrage.
    I think this is deep in the evangelical psyche (particularly Brits and Australians, evangelical Americans had a different relationship to slavery, as Mark Noll has ably and depressingly shown) and any attempt to 'rehabilitate' the notion of submission is going to have to tackle these historical parallels.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Mark - "That view about authority and equality overwhelms the gender debate."

    Because we both find it unthinkable that women are not equal. A legacy of the feminist movement as mentioned by Joanna, among other cultural changes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Mark - it's an interestingly Hegelian view of the development of doctrine, don't you think? Does truth need lies? Beauty need ugliness? Constructive theology that starts with a heresy will likely just lead to another...

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Joanna - If I've read you correctly, then I think I agree, complementarianism (or any view that says that authority and submission is a positive good) will need to address the implications of the batlle over race based slavery in the nineteenth century, and will benefit from an awareness that that shapes the context in which the gender debate takes place.

    As I said, I'm keen to chase this up with you, so I'll email you next year.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Jon - Because we both find it unthinkable that women are not equal.

    This is the kind of thing to which I'm referring. Both sides actually find it unthinkable that women are not equal. The debate is over what 'equal' involves.

    But it is a sign of the size of the problem that at least one side collapses the two issues into each other, such that it struggles to articulate why its view of equality is correct but tends to just assert it at a pre-critical, presuppositional level.

    Sometimes one just has to do that, somethings are just assumed. But, to keep on my basic point here in response to Alister Bain's and Anonymous' point, when a theological debate involves at least one side working with convictions held at such a fundamental level, the question is going to end up involving our doctrine of God. Because ultimately our doctrine of God is about the only thing that can challenge a moral intuition that we consider a priori true. And on the other hand, any moral intuition will normally be seen to be ultimately grounded in the character of God.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Michael - To the degree that there is any difference in our approaches in doing theology I think it might be linked to how for you truth, orthdoxy and beauty are naturally items in a set, and falsehood, heresy, and ugliness are natural items in a set.

    If this was the Garden of Eden, and the Word of God comes simply to sinless human beings who love the good for the good's sake and who walk in the light, I would happily agree with you. We could just pursue beautiful systems of thought in the abstract - an interestingly academic and Barthian view of rejecting the idea that the word of God is addressed to people in particular, not in abstract.

    But I think Calvin had the right of it, the word of God is accommodated to us in our sinfulness, not just our humanity, sheds light on our darkness. It is a sword that is wielded in battle, a rod and a staff that disciplines erring sheep, food for those who are perishing. It is not just a word to humans, it is a word to sinners.

    And so, no, truth doesn't need falsehood. But the truth of God is spoken to a world that walks in a denial of the truth - both capital T, and in all sorts of concrete ways. Part of the concrete and occassional and historical nature of God's revelation brings with it the fact that often a denial of the truth either in doctrine or practice occassioned the declaration of the word of God to correct that error.

    The prophets, Jesus' earthly ministry, many of the apostles' letters, all declare the truth in a constructive way. They don't ignore their context, or the challenges that existed. They address those errors in a way that sheds more light on the truth than we would have if they hadn't done it, or if they had ignored those concrete challenges.

    I think they'd be surprised to discover that by correcting error in a constructive way they were 'starting with heresy' and even more surprised to discover that they ended up in heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mark are you doing your old 'let me tell you what you really think and how you are allied with a baddy' trick again?

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Mark - can I ask the same question as Michael. What makes you think people who advocate equality along egalitarian lines haven't thought about what equality means? Perhaps we just see it differently to you?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm thin. (Ha ha, I don't write that sentence very often).

    I find it a little distressing that some people invoke their understanding of the Trinity to place restrictions in such a practical way on possible ministries of women. The reason I find this distressing: Who really understands the trinity fully? I'm inclined to distrust anyone who says they do.

    On related note. It strikes me that the opposition of "authority and submission" is not directly Biblical. What I find in the NT is the opposition (and apposition) of head and body/glory and elsewhere the opposition of submission and love. I don't see "authority and submission" anywhere - am I wrong? I see how you could understand the passages about headship to be really about authority, but it seems to me that that's only one possible interpretation.

    Still learning...
    Donna

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Michael. Heh, no, it's a similar fencing trick, that I bring out when someone does the 'let me tell you what you really think and how you are allied with a baddy' trick to me by classifying my position as Hegelian and suggesting it'll lead to heresy. It's called 'parry and counterattack', where the counterattack is a mirror-image of the original thrust.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Jon - I agree. I think many egalitarians have thought about what equality means. When I say 'pre-critical', that's not an insult, it means that they struggle to do much more than assert it. To assert it is to show that it is true.

    There's stuff like that in life, not everything can be argued for, some things you just see when they are pointed to.

    But I do think that the egalitarian notion of equality does function in that way for most (all?) egalitarians I have read.

    +It is common for egalitarians to tell a complementarian to 'go and read a dictionary and you'll see that you are talking nonsense' (rather than arguing for it) - a clear sign in theology that someone is functioning with a presuppositional take on the concepts.

    +When I read an article like Groothius' in Discovering Biblical Equality that does seek to make this issue the basis for careful logical argument, she still, at the key points in the argument, seems to just import her understanding as a priori true rather than it be the a posteriori conclusion to her argument.

    ReplyDelete
  27. +When I read egalitarian books this principle is just invoked as self-evidently true. The most staggering example of this (and one I regularly refer to for this reason) is Miroslav Volf's After our Likeness. Volf has a very good mind, is rightfully well respected. In the book he spends the first half detailing how Ratzinger (current vicar of Christ, and so arguably a good exponent of Catholicism) sees the relationship of the Father to the Son and a bishop to a congregation as analogous to each other and how Zizolous (important Orthodox theologian) does the same. They are both 'hierarchical' or 'complementarian' views of the Trinity and of church life. (Which, incidently, is suggestive that egalitarianism is the very new departure from where Christian thought has always been - as it is unlikely that complementarian Evangelicals, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy all moved independently.)

    Volf's response when he comes to outline his egalitarian view of Church and the Godhead? It amounts (as far as I can see) to a single sentence. Something along the lines of: "Obviously, among persons who share all the divine attributes and who are a community of perfect love, any notion of hierarchy and subordination is inconceivable."

    It's a simply stunning sentence. He's just spent a lot of very careful scholarship showing that it is conceivable, and by guys even more respected than he is theological scholarship. But that's it, to assert his well-thought through (and it is) view of equality is to automatically make any alternative 'inconceivable'.

    And at this point I always want to quote The Princess Bride, but I'll refrain.

    None of that is saying egalitarians haven't thought about their view, quite the contrary. It's to say that it is held in a way that is an assumption - any other view is 'inconceivable'.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Jon - had another thought that the pedant in me can't let go. When you first responded to what I said you stated:

    "Equality" and "authority and submission" existing side by side empties both sets of terms of any meaning.

    Then on the next time around you said:

    I think its a reasonable argument to suggest the Bible asks women to be subject to male authority in the church context - disagree myself, but see it as reasonable. I just don't think it makes sense to suggest that this is a form of equality

    And most recently put to me the following question:

    @ Mark - can I ask the same question as Michael. What makes you think people who advocate equality along egalitarian lines haven't thought about what equality means? Perhaps we just see it differently to you?

    This is the kind of thing I find interesting in these kind of debates (not just this one, but it certainly happens often here). I don't think I ever said that egalitarians haven't thought about what equality means. Your final question implies that I find it difficult to imagine that maybe there's just a disagreement between us as to the meaning of equality.

    But if that's true of anyone who's spoken in the thread so far, Jon, that's you. Your first quote above simply asserts that any other understanding of equality other than an egalitarian is meaningless. And you reassert that stance in the second quote - we can say that the Bible teaches that women must be subject to men's authority in church but it doesn't make any sense to claim that this is equality.

    That's an approach to the question that doesn't recognise that the other 'side' might just happen to see things differently. A view that, by claiming what we're saying 'doesn't make any sense' is either implying that we are incompetent or 'haven't thought about what equality means'.

    None of that is trying to win a game of 'gotcha'. It's quite possible that I and all other complementarians are wrong, and for the very reasons you put forward. It's just a feature of this debate that intrigues me - a bit like Michael, you accuse me of what is at the heart of your own rhetorical strategy.

    I don't have a problem with either strategy (yours or Michael's), they're both entirely Christian and legit. It just seems odd to do it, and then charge someone else with doing it as though it's a bad thing when they do it. It feels like a Yes Minister irregular verb.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Mark - yes, but I didn't claim Jesus for my side! That's the old reverse-Hitler move...

    But here's the thing. Though I do believe in the (secondary) authority of tradition, history isn't the same as theology. The synthesis isn't necessarily anymore true than the thesis and the antithesis - or, at least, it may have picked up some bugs along the way that still need eradication. In fact, it may have been wiser not have accepted the whole paradigm in the first place: that is still an option we need to consider before we engage in a theological version of the nuclear arms race...

    ReplyDelete
  30. ...which is to say, my comment about Hegelianism wasn't a intended as a 'rhetorical strategy'...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Mark I'm being a bit telegraphic because I'm trying to avoid "long comment syndrome" and also because I have a few clients hanging out for me to complete pieces of work so shouldn't let myself be too distracted. This is much more interesting, but doesn't earn my living.

    I haven't spent any time studying the relationship between the Trinity and authority in the church and will wave the ignorance flag there.

    When I first heard the term "complementarian", which was quite recently, it struck me as interesting because it implies equality but that the roles are different. This seems to me to be in line with other ideas about the body of Christ, eg in 1 Cor 12.

    However when we actually get down to the discussion it always appears to me to end up with this - there are some things that the Bible says women can't do (i.e. teach and have authority over men) which men can. The reverse, however, is not asserted - there are not things men can't do which women can.

    This to me is pretty definitively inequal - roles, opportunities and authority are distributed in an unequal way, some have more options than others. Hence my initial comment - to argue that this is biblical is one thing, to argue that it is equal is another thing entirely. We appear to be left with a version of equality which is solid in theory ( we acknowledge that men and women are equal in the sight of God, that he loves them equally) but melts away in practice.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Michael - ...which is to say, my comment about Hegelianism wasn't a intended as a 'rhetorical strategy'..

    Well, it was a rhetorical strategy, simply by virtue of the fact that you spoke with a desire to use language to persuade, not just inform. There's really no criticism there - I don't think 'rhetoric' is a dirty word. I think you're good at rhetoric (or, you're very persuasive) and that's a good thing.

    but I didn't claim Jesus for my side! That's the old reverse-Hitler move...

    Sure, I began by offering you some examples from history that would support the idea that theology developing in the context of controversy can be a good thing. You responded by starting a 'theological arms race' and opening up with a theological WMD - using the heresy word, and by implication, calling egalitarianism heresy, and thick complementarianism heresy as well.

    Like bringing in the Trinity, once someone has decided to raise the stakes high there's really only two options. Use your 'theological pacifist' approach and offer a 'thin' defense of my theological method in response or accept the challenge and meet you on the ground you've chosen. As you've indicated that what I'm suggesting will (usually?) lead to heresy, then showing that Jesus could be seen as an example of what I'm suggesting is a good rebuttal of your accusation of incipient heresy.

    The synthesis isn't necessarily anymore true than the thesis and the antithesis - or, at least, it may have picked up some bugs along the way that still need eradication.

    Sure. But the problem with your whole attack is exemplified here. I wasn't suggesting anything Hegelian (at least this time). My suggestion was truth meeting error and, as a result of combatting error, coming to a richer grasp of the truth and its implications.

    Hegel's idea involves thesis and antithesis - two truths, each of which is true and neither of which is directly compatible with the other, but require a third truth that establishes both as true in their context and opens up the possibility for moving our understanding to a new level. For Hegel, where there is a genuine error, his system ceases - an error can be identified in that it never produces either an antithesis or synthesis.

    About the only thing those two views have in common is some sense that we can understand something better in time than we did earlier in time. That hardly makes them the same idea. Goldsworthy's biblical theology similarly has a view of revelation 'progressing' but that hardly makes it a Hegelian understanding of Scripture.

    In fact, it may have been wiser not have accepted the whole paradigm in the first place: that is still an option we need to consider before we engage in a theological version of the nuclear arms race...

    Yes, the person advocating not responding to egalitarian's accusation that we're speaking nonsense as that will start an arms race is also the person who reaches straight for 'heresy' as his first armament of choice - and so goes nuclear in the cause of stopping us going nuclear.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Donna. I'm thin. (Ha ha, I don't write that sentence very often).

    haha.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Mark - you mistake me. Since the word 'Hegelian' has caused such offence, I withdraw it.

    I would naturally concur that the historical record shows that controversy has helped theology to develop. I would add that it has often introduced 'bugs' into the system too.

    We need to discern, as best we can: what are the benefits? what are the potential bugs we are introducing? There may be more options before us than we think.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Michael - Then we're in agreement :).

    I'm naturally not going to argue that controversy guarantees theology to develop correctly - it is something that can easily go wrong, as theology as always can.

    And I agree that there's more options before us than 'traditional' and 'egalitarian'. You seem to be advocating trying to side-step the debate as much as possible. I think we need to use it as a stimulus to reexamine some of the key terms and concepts and possibly come to a better grasp of them. That would seem to be a disagreement between us, but we agree that just accepting egalitarianism's terms as automatically correct and thus trying to defend the position they're attacking isn't quite right.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi Jon

    When I first heard the term "complementarian", which was quite recently, it struck me as interesting because it implies equality but that the roles are different. This seems to me to be in line with other ideas about the body of Christ, eg in 1 Cor 12.

    Yes, that's clearly the kind of idea that's trying to be captured.

    However when we actually get down to the discussion it always appears to me to end up with this - there are some things that the Bible says women can't do (i.e. teach and have authority over men) which men can. The reverse, however, is not asserted - there are not things men can't do which women can.

    I think that's a fair description of how most complementarianism I've seen is articulated. I think most proponents make what I think is a mistake, and one that is common to egalitarianism. They speak of 'roles' but focus primarily on 'tasks' and so give the impression that men can do everything (all tasks) that women can do but women can't do everything (all tasks) that men can do.

    My own approach is to focus on roles primarily. Men can't be wives or mothers or sisters or aunts etc. Those are gender based roles with substantial content that are more than the some of their parts - more than just all the tasks one can list for their 'position description'. Even if men can do 'all the tasks' they still can't be a mother in someone's life, or their sister, or their wife.

    I think more constructive attention to this (not just in the context of defending one's flanks in debates) would address this concern of yours - a concern I think is quite valid. We are more to people in at least some of relationships than the things we can do. Who we are (of which gender is a factor) is critical as well.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This to me is pretty definitively inequal - roles, opportunities and authority are distributed in an unequal way, some have more options than others. Hence my initial comment - to argue that this is biblical is one thing, to argue that it is equal is another thing entirely. We appear to be left with a version of equality which is solid in theory ( we acknowledge that men and women are equal in the sight of God, that he loves them equally) but melts away in practice.

    This is the crux, in my opinion.

    Almost every egalitarian I've read or interacted with thinks the way you do. 'Equality' has to mean that everyone has equal access to roles, and especially roles that possess authority. If it is only a commitment that we are equal in God's sight and love then that is theory that fails to inform practice.

    I want to very strongly say "No!" to that. Not as a defensive thing, but as a piece of constructive theological thinking. A Christian view of equality is not committed to everyone having equal access to roles or chances to wield authority.

    It is committed to the view that the person with authority is no better or higher or more noble or more worthy than the person subject to that authority. Smart people, strong people, rich people, beautiful people, natural leaders, people with every advantage, are no better than people who are dumb, weak, poor, ugly, natural followers, and utterly mediocre.

    Too me that's not 'theory' that fails to be worked out as 'practice' - as though equal opportunity is the only valid expression of commitment to genuine equality. It is, in itself, a powerfully practical vision of equality that says that ability and authority merely creates the context of service of those around one, never elevates one above others.

    And the more I read egaltiarianism's theory, the more it seems at risk of losing that in its pursuit of equal opportunity as the 'real meaning' of 'equality'.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @ Mark I'm dropping in and out here as I have a moment to check back. Sorry to elongate the whole thing! Re roles - the roles you list are pretty much biologically determined. Naturally I can't be a mother but I can be a father and that is in a sense "equal". But none of these roles come about as a result of our fitness or otherwise for the role - I become an uncle if one of my siblings has a child and then my choice is how well or badly I live that role.

    The dividing line in this debate, however, is over "gifted" roles, roles which people choose (or are chosen for) on the grounds of their fitness for the role. If you have the gift of learning and explaining things, you become a teacher. If you have the gift of organising things, you become an administrator. These are the type of roles to which my point applies and in which the inequality exists. What complementarianism does is to say that an essential qualification for some of these roles is possession of a Y chromosome - in other words to say that some of them are biologically determined. None of these types of roles, however, require two X chromosomes. I'm still not seeing how that can be equal.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Jon,

    I think you're doing well to keep this going under such a situation.

    You could be right, and it is only a matter of ability considered in abstract - list the tasks and anyone who can do those tasks in the abstract is qualified for the role. Being a pastor is like being a school teacher or lawyer or office manager. Fitness for the role is only a matter of ability.

    My argument is that there are some roles where ability is less significant - where age and gender are involved more fundamentally and ability is either not a factor (like in family life) or is less of a factor - just one factor, and not the only one (like being a pastor).

    So I agree with what you're saying about the jobs you list, but my point is grounded on a view that not all roles are based on ability in that sense. I'm saying that family, and family-like social institutions (such as church) aren't quite so strongly based on 'merit'.

    I'm going to try and make that case on Sola Panel next year, and I can understand that people will disagree (especially egalitarians, who, in my opinion, see all of life as governed by the rules of the marketplace - ability is the sole factor).

    But I think that those who end up agreeing with me that not all relationships are grounded only in ability will see that restrictions then based on non-ability considerations can be consistent with genuine equality.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mark, you are now approaching what is in fact the heart of the matter - despite attempts to invoke the character of God (Trinitarian) and other esoteric theologising - that is, your belief that certain relationships, defined by their authority structures, are based on non-ability considerations such as age or gender. Please would you now demonstrate to us how throughout Scripture there is such a principle as authority being 'gendered' in this way.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Heh, thanks for the invitation, Anonymous. I'll pass for the moment, as I'm going to be attempting that over at Sola Panel next year, and I don't think it's really fair to inflict such a debate on Simone's blog. But feel free to keep your eye on Sola for my excursus in that direction.

    This isn't an answer to your question, but it's something to go on in the meantime.

    1. There is a principle throughout Scripture that links gender and authority. Scripture clearly records a consistent pattern where women in authority was the exception not the rule. Most egalitarians think that at this point Scripture is simply reflecting patriarchy of the day, and making allowances for it. But that means that the principle is there in Scripture, and the debate is over whether we can see Scripture consistently and comprehensively overturning it, or whether it is endorsing it.

    2. That age is a factor is surely a no-brainer. Almost no-one thinks that a really wise, mature, and together teenager should lead their family even if they have more leadership ability than their parents. Some teens do have more ability than their parents (not often, but it does occur) if we just look at the tasks in the abstract. But most of us see that family life is structured by other factors more than competency.

    3. On this I don't think either side of the debate needs to be completely restricted to Scripture. So, for me, this little webpage http://trushare.com/83APR02/AP02LOW.htm captures some of what I suspect is going on. If the figures are right then fathers' practice in churchgoing has an utterly disproportional effect on children's churchgoing when they've grown up than mothers' churchgoing practice.

    That's a kind of 'authority' that has little to do with giving orders or the like. The father's way of life has an impact on the religious life of the children out of all proportion to the mother. If the figures are right, then that's a dynamic based pretty well only in gender factors and not competencies.

    As far as the Trinitarian nature of God and other esoteric theologising goes, well that invariably ends up being the big issue in this debate, whether we think it's driving the debate or is 'collateral damage'.

    An egalitarian view of authority generally leads to a vision of the Godhead where authority is alien and foreign to the relationships between the divine persons. God only started to have authority when creation came into existence, and he more naturally tends towards egalitarian and non-authorative relationships even in his dealings with humanity. He acts towards us in a way that reflects his own nature, and his own nature has no experience of authority.

    I understand why an egalitarian might think that the authority question is the heart of the matter. But I continue to be convinced that it is this 'God-question' that is far more significant.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I accept your deferred time and location for an answer, Mark. And I appreciate your response given above. I may be hitching a ride on your scholarly work in this area as I try to answer the question for myself: am I egalitarian, or thick/thin complementarian? According to the categories that you and others have identified here - btw, I'm sure Simone is loving the quantity and quality of comments on this particular post! - I am none of the above. I'm not negating God's experience of authority-submission. I'm not negating true equality between male and female. What I am asking is: is it possible to show, in Scriptural principle as well as social history, that authority-submission is a gendered way of relating? And, perhaps, if it is, is this way now restricted to relationships only within the church? In this regard, I appreciate your observation that 'the debate is over whether we can see Scripture consistently and comprehensively overturning [the principle of male authority], or whether it is endorsing it.' I am yet to see that a principle of male authority is prescriptive in Scripture, so as I research this more closely, I invite others' research also.

    It seems to me that we need a decent definition of 'authority' here in order to knuckle down in some detailed debate. Authority? Leadership? Influence? Models of sexual/personal identity? How will we describe the effect of fathers' churchgoing on their children? Again, I don't fit your egalitarian category with an insistence on competency-based relationships - I'm all for grace in God's economy - but can we call whatever is going on here an effect of 'gendered authority'? We best consider the effect of women in 19th century English society and church, with the subsequent feminist movements of the 20th century, to challenge an argument like Callum Brown's ('The Death of Christian Britain', in gross summary): women are responsible for the decline of Western Christianity.

    My point is that an ethic of gendered authority appears to lead to some pretty wild conclusions in positive and negative directions. Thick or thin, to start with an ethic of gendered authority is neither theologically nor socio-historically sound. Theologically, we have no evidence that there is gender in the Godhead, even if we can demonstrate authority-submission. Socio-historically, there are fewer purely gender issues than we think there are; most (e.g. domestic violence) are abuses of power.

    Age wasn't part of my question, though Paul's words to Timothy on being a young leader might challenge some assumptions here, too ;)

    As a side, I am not normally a writer of blogs, a follower of blogs, or a commenter on blogs, so thanks for respecting my anonymity. If I decide to continue my participation in this debate, I will identify myself and share something of a personal profile at a later date.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Anonymous,

    I have no problems with anonymity on blogs under normal circumstances, although I tend not to do it myself (I make some exceptions when that’s normal on a particular blog). I do have a problem when someone makes lots of personal attacks on other people’s character and integrity and do it anonymously – as people who followed my posts a couple of years ago on creationism would be aware. But I doubt you’d be in that category from what I can see. (Although I think Sola requires your name for commenting.)

    I like the issues you’re raising. As a person on one side of the debate, a lot of those are the same kind of ‘conceptual clarifications’ that I also think need to be done, and is a reason why I expect next year’s push is going to be very involved – it might well spill over to the following year (as I don’t want to blog on just this for a whole year).

    I think the only clarification I’d want to make here is that I’m not saying that gender always structures authority relationships, or that it is the only non-aptitude thing that might. I’m saying that some authority relationships (and that term authority needs some careful discussion as you observe) are structured on terms other than raw ability alone. That could be the case in the Godhead even though gender is not a category that applies there – as gender isn’t the only example of this idea.

    And Paul’s instructions to Timothy as a young leader, like Deborah, or Priscilla, or the woman of Proverbs 31 who gives instructions to the household servants (presumably male as well to female), all are important as they either indicate that gender and age are irrelevant, or that the dynamic I think is there might have exceptions and flexibilities in its outworking.

    ReplyDelete