Complementarianism vs Egalitarianism which is more biblical?

[Neostarwcc]

In case you don't know what the two words mean, Complementarianism means that women should not have pastoral rights or rights that take over what a man can and cant do. It doesn't divide men and women, it acknowledges that both sexes are in fact equal and equal in the eyes of God, but merely that we have different roles than each other. It acknowledges that women do not have to obey the every word of her husband, if he is telling her to do something against the word of God, she has a biblical right to say no and still fulfills the submission requirements of the Bible. Egalitarianism is the exact opposite, its the argument that women should have roles in ministry, should join the military, or basically have all of the same "rights if you will" as men do. You could shorten these two terms I suppose as Anti-Feminism and Feminism but I like using big church words

As a Calvinist and a member of the PCA I'm obviously going to be arguing for Complementarianism but I'm curious about what people from the other side of the coin have to say as well.

First, verses that support Complementarianism:

Proverbs 31
1 Timothy 2:9-15
1 Corinthians 14
1 Peter 3:1-7
Ephesians 5:22-24
Titus 1:6-9

All of these passages show that Women should not be in a role of leadership. They should not have authority over a man and I'm sorry but the Clergy is taking away man's authority. I'm not trying to be sexist, I'm not devaluing women, its just men and women have different God given roles. You cannot deny the fact that men are supposed to take care of women like Christ took care of the church yet, in today's world you don't see men stepping up and actually being men. Instead you see a shockingly high rate of divorce over the stupidest reasons. But, that's just my stance. What's your support for the other side and which side is correct? I'm interested in hearing your responses.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Interesting topic and will be curious to see if you get any takers. I've argued the Complementarian line off and on for nearly two decades online. The only semi-decent points I've encountered are the Feminist Christians who bring up "the household codes" of Greece and Rome, which is a point worth noting but it doesn't really work as a fully orbed argument when it comes to saint Paul, the other Apostles, most of Jesus' ministry etc.


And of course Junia. It seems like oceans of ink have been spilled about her, reading so much into that mention you could craft a Gnostic Gospel from all the stuff said and speculated on.


But I expect lots of forth coming Argumentum ad Misericordia as well as talk about stuff that was appropriate for a particular time or dispensation.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

In case you don't know what the two words mean, Complementarianism means that women should not have pastoral rights or rights that take over what a man can and cant do. It doesn't divide men and women, it acknowledges that both sexes are in fact equal and equal in the eyes of God, but merely that we have different roles than each other. It acknowledges that women do not have to obey the every word of her husband, if he is telling her to do something against the word of God, she has a biblical right to say no and still fulfills the submission requirements of the Bible. Egalitarianism is the exact opposite, its the argument that women should have roles in ministry, should join the military, or basically have all of the same "rights if you will" as men do. You could shorten these two terms I suppose as Anti-Feminism and Feminism but I like using big church words

As a Calvinist and a member of the PCA I'm obviously going to be arguing for Complementarianism but I'm curious about what people from the other side of the coin have to say as well.

First, verses that support Complementarianism:

Proverbs 31
1 Timothy 2:9-15
1 Corinthians 14
1 Peter 3:1-7
Ephesians 5:22-24
Titus 1:6-9

All of these passages show that Women should not be in a role of leadership. They should not have authority over a man and I'm sorry but the Clergy is taking away man's authority. I'm not trying to be sexist, I'm not devaluing women, its just men and women have different God given roles. You cannot deny the fact that men are supposed to take care of women like Christ took care of the church yet, in today's world you don't see men stepping up and actually being men. Instead you see a shockingly high rate of divorce over the stupidest reasons. But, that's just my stance. What's your support for the other side and which side is correct? I'm interested in hearing your responses.

I dont think either side is biblical as the flesh corrupts anything given by God.
First hand experience. Be blessed.

 

[EpicScore]

I dont think either side is biblical as the flesh corrupts anything given by God.
First hand experience. Be blessed.

If both are unbiblical, then what are your views on the Biblical teaching of the role of men and women, especially in church settings?

On the topic itself, I'm generally in agreement with the OP, but I think even within the same framework, there's room to discuss on where the exact boundaries should be, i.e. to what extent can they be involved in the ministry?

At one of the churches I've attended, women don't get ordained as pastors, but can speak at the pulpit as an Evangelist (albeit rarely), lead worship, and can serve as elders/deacons. Would that still be in line with the Biblical boundaries, or is that an abuse of loopholes? What about a pastor's wife, what sort of role can they serve at her husband's church, if she can have any at all?

This is certainly an interesting topic to explore, especially since, in my case, I'd be facing those constraints if I were to be more involved in the work of the church.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

If both are unbiblical, then what are your views on the Biblical teaching of the role of men and women, especially in church settings?

On the topic itself, I'm generally in agreement with the OP, but I think even within the same framework, there's room to discuss on where the exact boundaries should be, i.e. to what extent can they be involved in the ministry?

At one of the churches I've attended, women don't get ordained as pastors, but can speak at the pulpit as an Evangelist (albeit rarely), lead worship, and can serve as elders/deacons. Would that still be in line with the Biblical boundaries, or is that an abuse of loopholes? What about a pastor's wife, what sort of role can they serve at her husband's church, if she can have any at all?

This is certainly an interesting topic to explore, especially since, in my case, I'd be facing those constraints if I were to be more involved in the work of the church.

I don't think narrowing it to just " women pastors" is a good way to explain one or the other. It is a lifestyle and it includes both men and women. Far too often this is only focused on the role of women. What about men? The natural order of things will happen naturally if both parties walk with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Both are unbiblical because it is human-centred theology, it's not about God's role in our life - it is about creating commandments to restrict humans on how they can or cannot serve God.

There are a lot of theologies that are like this, and both sides of the false dichotomy are wrong for 1) drawing eyes away from God's role in our lives moment to moment, and 2) getting involved in the drama and giving validity to the opposing argument.

 

[Clare73]

In case you don't know what the two words mean, Complementarianism means that women should not have pastoral rights or rights that take over what a man can and cant do. It doesn't divide men and women, it acknowledges that both sexes are in fact equal and equal in the eyes of God, but merely that we have different roles than each other. It acknowledges that women do not have to obey the every word of her husband, if he is telling her to do something against the word of God, she has a biblical right to say no and still fulfills the submission requirements of the Bible.

Are there any other areas, apart from sin, where she is allowed to refuse submission to her husband?

Egalitarianism is the exact opposite, its the argument that women should have roles in ministry, should join the military, or basically have all of the same "rights if you will" as men do. You could shorten these two terms I suppose as Anti-Feminism and Feminism but I like using big church words

As a Calvinist and a member of the PCA I'm obviously going to be arguing for Complementarianism but I'm curious about what people from the other side of the coin have to say as well.

First, verses that support Complementarianism:

Proverbs 31
1 Timothy 2:9-15
1 Corinthians 14
1 Peter 3:1-7
Ephesians 5:22-24
Titus 1:6-9

All of these passages show that Women should not be in a role of leadership. They should not have authority over a man and I'm sorry but the Clergy is taking away man's authority. I'm not trying to be sexist, I'm not devaluing women, its just men and women have different God given roles. You cannot deny the fact that men are supposed to take care of women like Christ took care of the church yet, in today's world you don't see men stepping up and actually being men. Instead you see a shockingly high rate of divorce over the stupidest reasons. But, that's just my stance. What's your support for the other side and which side is correct? I'm interested in hearing your responses.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I don't think narrowing it to just " women pastors" is a good way to explain one or the other. It is a lifestyle and it includes both men and women. Far too often this is only focused on the role of women. What about men? The natural order of things will happen naturally if both parties walk with the Holy Spirit.

I'm a tad confused on your defense of "both doctrines are wrong" one says that women can be pastors and one says that women cannot. I don't see any other option, if a woman wants to enter ministry there are denominations that allow it or forbid it. Either we can have women in our ministry or we cannot. Also, are you saying some men shouldn't be pastors? Why? Most of them (not saying all) are masters degree educated on theology and make fantastic pastors. I mean, excluding the ones that just steal people's money but, I don't really call them pastors.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Both are unbiblical because it is human-centred theology, it's not about God's role in our life - it is about creating commandments to restrict humans on how they can or cannot serve God.

There are a lot of theologies that are like this, and both sides of the false dichotomy are wrong for 1) drawing eyes away from God's role in our lives moment to moment, and 2) getting involved in the drama and giving validity to the opposing argument.

Human based Theology that's centered around scripture. Just because I don't think the other side is biblical doesn't mean that they don't use Bible verses to support their argument.

What? Are we going to start denying the Trinity now just because it isn't explicitly stated in scripture and is inferable from the text?

Btw, if you read any of the verses that I posted in my OP you would see that God does in fact, want roles for men and women. We were created equally with different roles.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Are there any other areas, apart from sin, where she is allowed to refuse submission to her husband?

Depends. There are probably many scenario's in which they could veto their husbands. Like I said, anything unbiblical is a big thing, if a man is not fulfilling his role in a marriage I'd say that. If they're not sleeping together or are in need of marriage counseling because their marriage is falling apart. Also, if her husband wants to get a $300,000 Ferrari and they only have $20k in the bank I'd encourage them to speak up. Like I said, I in no way wanted to devalue women or be sexist, in fact I was blaming men for the biggest reason our world is falling apart. I was merely just saying that men aren't being men these days and that's probably a large cause of our high divorce rate. Men not raising their children into the faith, men not changing diapers, men running out on women who are pregnant, a woman having to get a job to support her family because the man just sits on the couch in his underwear watching anime all day and has no job.

It goes two ways, and I think in order for women to fulfil their roles their husband has to be in a good state too. We have to "man up".

 

[Matt5]

First, we have to tackle the idea of equality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand the problem with equality we have to go back to the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. The whole earth is of one language and they dwelt in the land of Shinar. The land of Shinar is not a specific place but any place led by a tyrant (separated from God). And then we see it in the 3rd verse: "Let us make brick, ... And they had brick for stone,." Nimrod, the tyrant, was transforming stones into bricks. God makes people likes stones (all different) and tyrants make people like bricks (all equal.) Nimrod was seducing people by making them all equal and using materialism as the mortar to hold society together.

God saw that Nimrod's society was on a path that would lead to war and likely destroy everyone. God's creation was now at risk. Therefore, God stepped in to save everybody by scrambling their language.

This interpretation came from Rabbi Daniel Lapin based on the oral Torah.

Take a look at how God feels about brick or hewn stone (cut stone or brick):

Exodus 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

Isaiah 65:3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;

Altars of brick are a no-no because the brick has symbolic value. People are stones, not bricks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People are not equal before the law, like in divorce court.

Equal opportunity means a lottery for college entrance and employment. Is that what we really want?

The idea of any kind of equality is a fantasy.

If everybody is different from one another, then women are different from men. We can see today that if women focus on their career then they don't have babies. That is just the start of the problems, like putting marriage (and dating) on a slow death march.

Just say no to egalitarianism.

 

[Paidiske]

Sigh. I'll put my hand up as an egalitarian. I'll also say that I think the OP misrepresents egalitarianism, so that's not a helpful start. (It also misrepresents complementarianism as harmless, but maybe we can come back to that later).

Let me start here; this is a copy and paste from the SOP of the Egalitarian forum here on CF (which I had a hand in drafting).

Some things about Egalitarians include:

• Belief that the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women in Creation and in Redemption
• Belief that both woman and man were created for full and equal partnership.
• Belief that man and woman were co-participants in the Fall
• Belief that husbands and wives are joint heirs together of the grace of life and that they are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility
• Belief that both mothers and fathers are to exercise leadership in the nurture, training, discipline and teaching of their children

 

[WolfGate]

A really hard thread to figure out how to respond to since the original post mischaracterizes both egalitarianism and complementarianism almost to the point of being caricatures.

 

[hedrick]

This is more complicated than a single Biblical view. Also, I’m not convinced that complementarianism existed before the modern debate on women’s rights, and I’m not convinced that it exists very commonly even today. Gen 3:16 better describes the reality:

“yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

All ancient cultures and many modern ones are patriarchal, not complementation.

That includes both the OT and NT cultures.

But as Paidiske indicates, we do see in the Bible an alternative. The passages have been cited many times. Jesus with both male and female disciples, with the female ones being as important as the male. Paul acknowledging female leaders. But there are plenty of signs of the dominant patriarchal culture as well.

So as always, we have to choose which is more in tune with the Gospel. I agree with Paidiske. People who pretend that there is always a single Biblical position have a tendency to side with the most strident voices, such as 1 Timothy. My position is that Gen 3:16 is right: patriarchalism is a result of the Fall (whether the Fall is literal or not), and not something Christians should accept as right.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm a tad confused on your defense of "both doctrines are wrong" one says that women can be pastors and one says that women cannot. I don't see any other option, if a woman wants to enter ministry there are denominations that allow it or forbid it. Either we can have women in our ministry or we cannot. Also, are you saying some men shouldn't be pastors? Why? Most of them (not saying all) are masters degree educated on theology and make fantastic pastors. I mean, excluding the ones that just steal people's money but, I don't really call them pastors.

I did state this is far more reaching than pastoring. I also stated the flesh corrupts therefore both sides have not seen truth.

 

[Clare73]

Depends. There are probably many scenario's in which they could veto their husbands. Like I said, anything unbiblical is a big thing, if a man is not fulfilling his role in a marriage I'd say that. If they're not sleeping together or are in need of marriage counseling because their marriage is falling apart. Also, if her husband wants to get a $300,000 Ferrari and they only have $20k in the bank I'd encourage them to speak up.

But is it really about speaking up. . .they should always give input to marriage decisions. . .isn't it about who gets to make the call?

Like I said, I in no way wanted to devalue women or be sexist, in fact I was blaming men for the biggest reason our world is falling apart.

I'm not sure that is the reason.
It wasn't falling apart as it so clearly is now when men hadn't been de-masculinized in the name of domestic freedom for women.

I was merely just saying that men aren't being men these days and that's probably a large cause of our high divorce rate.

I'm thinking our high divorce rate is due to kids being raised in childcare centers for the sake of a higher standard of living in the digital and media world, instead of at home with their mother where they can be nurtured and grow up to make stable marriages.

Men not raising their children into the faith, men not changing diapers, men running out on women who are pregnant, a woman having to get a job to support her family because the man just sits on the couch in his underwear watching anime all day and has no job.

I suggest that is the result of de-masculinizing men in the name of domestic freedom for women.

goes two ways, and I think in order for women to fulfil their roles their husband has to be in a good state too. We have to "man up".

I don't see any "man up" being able to take place until women get back to raising their own children instead of farming them out to daycare centers.

It all begins in the home, a stable, mother-daily-nurturing home.

 

[Paidiske]

FWIW, I'd also strongly reject the claim that "our world is falling apart." I simply don't see that at all. And the large social issues that I would identify - climate change, warfare, oppression and exploitation of various kinds - have very little to do with the domestic lives of ordinary families.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Human based Theology that's centered around scripture. Just because I don't think the other side is biblical doesn't mean that they don't use Bible verses to support their argument.

What? Are we going to start denying the Trinity now just because it isn't explicitly stated in scripture and is inferable from the text?

Btw, if you read any of the verses that I posted in my OP you would see that God does in fact, want roles for men and women. We were created equally with different roles.

Your comparison is fallacious, since the trinity in application has a counterpart that is contrary to it that is currently being applied (beyond assertions) by the church.

There are scripture passages illustrating God not making an issue of gender roles when none were being expressed culturally. Thus, it's more of an expressing the gospel within a restrictive cultural framework, than the actual perception of God.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Thank you for your opinions and posts.

I'm quite educated by this thread. My views on the matter probably won't change but its interesting that there are Christians with other beliefs out there that could actually turn out to be biblical.

 

[bèlla]

Just because you're a man doesn't make you a leader. Gender doesn't give you a monopoly on guidance. The bible is full of foolish men and the world is too.

Some people are adept at leadership. They have the personality and makeup to become exemplary leaders. A lot of it is innate. You can go to school or read a book. But it's not the same. Remarkable is a trait. Not a subject.

A lot of people weaponize the bible. They soothe their egos through passages that make them believe they're something they're not. But if it was really true the results would speak for themselves. The church wouldn't be in its current state. Marriages wouldn't be failing. And there would be less finger pointing.

When you're at the helm you own it and you're accountable. Most people don't want that. They want feel good statements and accolades. Look at your life. That's leadership 101. Would you follow you?

There's nothing worse than self-delusion. Believing something doesn't make it true. If more people were willing to accept the reality of their condition we'd spend less time discussing this.

There's 66 books in the bible and one David. One Paul. And one Moses. Extraordinary isn't commonplace. Leaders are extra ordinary. They go beyond the norm. You'll find them in both sexes.

~bella