I Am More Egalitarian Than I Want To Admit Pt. 2

Continuing where I left off yesterday, I wish to address the other points given by Randy Stinson, in his post entitled Is Complementarianism Merely A Personal Conviction?, on the Gender blog.

I do want to mention the fact that Mr.  Stinson does state that a person is a Christian if they disagree with the complemantarian view. I appreciate that. My brow does furrow as I read what Mr. Stinson believes not adhering to the Complementary view does to even the church. I will explain further when I list each of Mr. Stinson’s points.

3. The health of the church is at stake.

Just like the home, if the church disobeys the teaching of 1Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11 and disregards the structure that God put into place for the community of faith from the beginning, then the church will be weakened.  If the church is weakened in its convictions, it will be less effective in accomplishing its mission.

I do believe that the church must have leadership. It should be a servant/shepherd leadership.  I do believe that leadership should have convictions and that those convictions should be listened to. Most churches have a statement of beliefs, those beliefs define that local church. There also must be some type of order. That’s not only Biblical, but just plain common sense. I’ve attended churches where people spoke as “the Spirit led them” during a service, not your typical Amen or agreeing with the sermon, but literally interrupting the speaker, and frankly it was quite chaotic and nerve wracking. It’s kind of like the old saying “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” It does.

Mr. Stinson references 1 Timothy 2, but it seems to me that he is just appealing to the last part of this chapter, when the first part of this chapter is very important and part of the text, it gets sidetracked by focusing on the last few verses pertaining to women. I am sure that Mr. Stinson and I would disagree on the interpretation of this passage. To put it simply, if we follow one thing, we must then follow it all. I do know of churches that use this passage as a reason to keep women from wearing makeup, bright colors, jewelry or dying there hair. If we disagree that this is wrong, then the interpretation that women must keep quiet at church must be looked at as well. From the complementarians I have read, they say this is not what the passage is meaning. Again, where is that any different than the egalitarian view?

Where I do disagree with complementarians is in the meaning of the word head. I do agree with the interpretation of provider, sustainer, servant leader. Notice the word Savior used in Ephesians 5:23. That is important to note. If it were meant as authority, shouldn’t the word Lord be used in place of Savior? We need to look at putting American meanings or modern day meanings to first century words. Every single word that is in scripture is there for a purpose. It is God breathed, God doesn’t waste space.

4. Our worship is at stake.

Increasingly, members of the evangelical community, in the name of gender equality, are advocating calling God “mother” as often as we call him “father.”  God has named Himself and for us to make changes to His self revelation not only undermines the written Word, but also undermines God’s authority in our lives.  The very nature of our triune God is revealed in a biblically ordered marriage. God means to be seen and savored through the ‘lens’ of complementary relationships between the sexes.

I question anyone who would wish to do this, but we also must remember that God is genderless. I mentioned before that I do not advocate changing any words in the Bible, and if this is referring to the new TNIV that has been proposed for the last several years, this is a rumor that is not true. The only thing that this version has wanted to do is change men to men and women where the passage is referring to men and women. I would ask Mr. Stinson to go to the CBE website and find anywhere where anyone has advocated this. I have not seen it, and I searched for quite awhile, but I could have missed something. I just think it is one of those things that Evangelicals who believe that all are equal, men and women, will not want such a thing to occur, do not condone it if it does, and would reject it as false. Again God is genderless, the Bible references God as Father, as male, I do as well.

Christ came to this earth in human form as a man. I believe as Mr. Stinson does that this is important to note. But, I would also ask Mr. Stinson to observe how Christ treated women. In the first century Christ’s talking to women, treatment, and use of them in His ministry was radical. It was something just not done. He was kind, gentle, taught them as much as His disciples. In fact what did Jesus say to Martha concerning Mary?

Luk 10:41  But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things,
Luk 10:42  but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”

5. Bible translations are at stake.

There are many who are currently advocating for Bible translations that would essentially be “gender-neutral.” These translations, in hundreds of places, remove the words he, him, his, brother, father, son, and man. While much more information can be found here, my concern is that in the name of gender equality, the Bible is undermined and the very words of God end up being revised.

See explanation above. This has been said for at least twenty five years if not longer. It has not happened yet. I kind of file this under the same file I have Dispensationalism. It’s predictions have come and gone with no results. I do agree with the arguments Mr. Stinson has given, if it were to come to pass, those would be my objections as well. In fact let me quote from The Bible And Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis:

Evangelical egalitarianism, or biblical equality, refers to the biblically-based belief that gender,
in and of itself, neither privileges nor curtails a believer’s gifting or calling to any ministry in the church
or home. In particular, the exercise of spiritual authority, as biblically defined, is deemed as much a
female believer’s privilege and responsibility as it is a male believer’s.
Biblical equality does not mean women and men are identical or undifferentiated. Biblical
egalitarians recognize average differences (both learned and intrinsic) between women and men, and
affirm that God designed men and women to complement and benefit one another.
Although it shares with feminism the belief that unjust treatment of women should be remediated,
biblical equality is not grounded in feminist ideology, which is derived from cultural factors and
philosophies. Rather, biblical equality is grounded simply and solely in the properly consistent
interpretation of God’s written word. On this basis, biblical egalitarians (a) affirm that the gifts and
callings of the Spirit are distributed without regard to gender, and that all believers in Christ stand on
equal ground before God, and (b) repudiate the notion that the Bible grants to men spiritual authority and
other religious privileges that it denies to women.

In few words, I agree. There isn’t much I can add to this.

6. The advance of the Gospel is at stake.

Ephesians 5 calls husbands and wives to relate to one another as a picture of Christ and the church.  The picture involves the humble, sacrificial leadership of the husband and the joyful, intelligent submission to that leadership by the wife.  Husbands and wives who model this improperly portray a distorted and false picture of Jesus Christ, the Head and Savior of His bride, the church.  Deviation from biblical teaching on manhood and womanhood distorts the picture of Christ and the Church, and hinders the advance of the gospel.

Ephesians 5 needs to be read along with all of Ephesians. Ephesians only has six books. Each chapter connecting to the other. Mutual submission is spoken of in Ephesians too. Again, I’m having a hard time understanding how belief in mutual submission and respect between husband and wife would hinder the gospel. It would advance it, it would seem to me. Christ has come to set men and women free, and not just from sin, but from bondage as well. We are equal in the eyes of God and while we are different as men and women, celebrating those differences, women are just as equipped to give the gospel as men. I am having a difficult time understanding both the Biblical basis and the reasoning for this point.

I’m putting myself out on a thin limb here, ripe for some to saw at, but I’m willing to do it. With all due respect to Mr. Stinson, some of these reasons seem to be a threat more than a Biblical argument for the complementarian view. For example, he says it will hinder the church, hinder the gospel, create men who are not men, women who are not women, confusion, if one does not adhere to and follow the complementarian view.

My point would be that God looks on the heart, and while I see something different in the passages than Mr. Stinson does, he could be wrong and I could be right, or vice versa, the fact that we both seek to please our Savior is what God sees. Not all scripture is clear on certain subjects, and while I see it clearly or think I do, and Mr. Stinson sees it clearly, or thinks he does, neither one of us is going to be perfect in our interpretations. We are after all imperfect people. To be honest, if I’m going to err, I’m wanting to err on the side that treats men, women, children, all ethnicity, as kindly and gently as possible.

Christ came and things changed between men and women. If you remember culture in the first century, we as women were not treated nor looked upon to favorably. Things were a mess, and I don’t know about you, but a concubine is not something I could be in very easily. I kind of like the one man and one woman scenario.

When Christ ushered in the new Covenant things changed radically, which is why Paul did appeal to the culture of the day at times, many times throughout scripture. Christianity is radically different, and try though he might Satan cannot replicate it. I believe he has tried through modern day feminism, but it misses the mark. It’s not pure, it’s not Holy, it’s not glorifying to God. Christian feminism(for lack of a better word) is however centered on a woman’s desire to better her world for Christ, to not help someone give the gospel, but to give the gospel. Period. To help those in need, to bring Christ to the world. And that build the Kingdom, not tears it down. Let us do what God calls us to do.

My husband and I see each other as equals and we’ve been happily married for 24 years. I appeal to his strengths and wisdom, he appeals to mine.  In fact when I told my husband what I was writing about, he said, “Our marriage has just naturally been that way, we haven’t really had to think about it. We loved each other and the rest fell into place.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.