I Am More Egalitarian Than I Want To Admit

I’m sure my title comes as no surprise to those who have been reading me for awhile.

This piece from the Gender blog written by Randy Stinson, has bothered me since I have read it. I realize that Al Mohler, John Piper, Dorothy Patterson, Danny Akin, to name a few, are members of the CBMW, but I can’t go against what I see in scripture and has yet to be addressed by this group, along with other complementarians.

I also invite you to read insightful posts written by Emily Hunter McGowin, who I respect and like to read, along with a blog that has a series running on leadership, for the thinking Christian woman, words that are unusual to hear in the Christian Community, along with the recent post by Mary Burleson, another woman I have come to know personally, albeit briefly, and not only like to read, but respect.  Also Alyce Faulkner, who is a bright mind among Christian women. She and her husband Mackey have recently begun a ministry that serves women just out of prison, along with their children.

But back to the article in question. The main problem I have with this piece is that I see it as taking a hyperbole, and making a case out of it. I do not support the gender changing of the Bible. I do however think that ministers and teachers must stress that the masculine words used for both men and women are meant for both men and women. I stress this whenever I teach a lesson.It makes a huge difference in women’s  lives to hear this.

Next, are the points that Randy Stinson makes which I would like to address point by point. His first point being:

1. The authority of scripture is at stake.

The Bible clearly teaches that men and women are equal in value and dignity and are have distinct and complementary roles in the home and the church.  If churches disregard these teachings and accommodate the culture, then the members of those churches and subsequent generations will be less likely to submit to God’s word in other difficult matters as well.

I disagree that the authority of scripture is at stake just because a person is egalitarian. The word egalitarian is derived from the French word ‘egal, which  means that both men and women are equal.

Wade Burleson posted a piece written by another author, that gave detailed scriptural basis for the author’s beliefs which were egalitarian. Scriptural authority was used, and used quite well. You can read it here, here, here,here, here,and here. Also if you log into the CBE website, you will find a solid Biblical basis for what they believe.

This has nothing to do with culture, although I believe it is culture that showed the church their mistakes in how they counseled and treated women. It was culture that showed women deserved better than being talked down to, made to be literally silent, something Paul did not mean in the passages given. I don’t hear a sermon or read an article from the complementarian view on the women who had a strong role in the ministry of Christ, Paul, nor of those in the Old Testament, other than to explain away why they were leaders. That seems to take away from the authority of scripture. The authority of the Bible being something I embrace.

2.The health of the home is at stake.

If families do not structure their homes properly, in disobedience to the teaching of Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3, and Colossians 3, then they will not have the proper foundation upon which to withstand the temptations of the devil and the various onslaughts of the world.  This hinders the sanctification of married couples and also introduces confusion about basic parenting issues such as raising masculine sons and feminine daughters.

The obvious first question would be, how is equally respecting and submitting to one another as husband and wife “a temptation of the devil or a onslaught of the world”? How does mutually respecting and submitting to one another, treating each other as equals, better yet, treating the wife as a thinking adult, hindering sanctification in the marriage or hindering raising masculine sons or feminine daughter?

If masculinity requires that women be looked on as someone they need to lead, then that may be the first of many problems. If femininity requires we look upon men as someone who needs to lead us, or that we even need to be led by a man, that may be the start of more problems.

When we lean on another person, it tends to take our eyes off of Christ and to put them on that other person. Also, how many complimentarians have said, it is wise to listen to the wife. They listen to their wives, using them as a sounding board and often times ask their opinion. Male Complementarians describe their wife as their best friend, as it should be. Where is that different from the egalitarian view?

There is no disobedience of the passages above, especially when taken in context with the rest of the book speaking of mutual submission. Galatians where Paul speaks of their being no Jew nor Greek, no male or female. God has given Christ authority and power. Christ did the Father’s will here on earth, but Christ could have called ten thousand angels down. He willingly submitted to the Father’s will. God can give no wrong instruction, He cannot sin, He is perfect as Christ is perfect. Christ was 100% human but also 100% God. Neither I nor my husband can make that claim. I might also give statistics of church going Christian men who have verbally or physically abused their wives, quoting these very passages. It’s a growing problem among Christian men. That to me is de-sanctifying and unhealthy for the home. What that teaches our girls is harmful, what it teaches our boys is harmful as they pass it on to their home.

I will stop here for now, addressing the rest of the points in the next post or two, hoping this gives you…

Something to think about.