Both complementarianism and egalitarianism have their extremes. After being told that wanting to address the extremes of both sides was a "red herring", I became curious: what are the denominations that first ordained women and what are they doing now?
The list is from Religious Tolerance. I don't like their "theology", but the list is what I was looking for. They're looking to give denominations a pat on the back for breaking the sex barrier, so I'm guessing that it's pretty accurate.
1. The Society of Friends (Quakers) began ordaining women in the early 1800's. Each local congregation is independent, so there is no set policy or unity on the topic...thus, while every congregation does not accept gay/lesbian/transgender as acceptable, the denomination is certainly struggling with the topic.
In Australia:
With this background, Quakers supported the establishment of Queensland’s first openly homosexual organisation, C.A.M.P. Inc., in 1971. In 1975, Quakers officially stated: The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Australia calls for a change in the laws ... to eliminate discrimination against homosexuals. This statement is made in the light of the Society’s desire to remove discrimination and persecution in the community. The Society also calls on all people to seek more knowledge and understanding of the diversity of human relationships and to affirm the worth of love in all of them. Yearly Meeting 1975, Minute 23
In North America, "Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns":
We seek to know that of God within ourselves and others. We seek to express God's truth in the Quaker and in the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transsexual/transgender communities, as it is made known to us.
It is our hope to offer an oasis to those who have been spurned by the world at large. We are learning that radical inclusion and radical love bring further light to Quaker testimony and life. Our experience with oppression in our own lives leads us to seek ways to bring our witness to bear in the struggles of other oppressed peoples.
In the United Kingdom (via Wiki):
Quakers in the United Kingdom are similarly accepting; one of the first statements in Quakerism regarding homosexuality was the controversial 1963 book Towards a Quaker View of Sex, published by a group of British Quakers, which affirmed that gender or sexual orientation were unimportant in a judgment of an intimate relationship and that the true criterion was the presence of "selfless love." A statement similar to this was later adopted by Britain Yearly Meeting.
There are congregations that don't embrace this extreme end, but my point is that the first denomination to ordain women was one of the first to deal with the gay/lesbian/transgender issue - and they are far from united on it.
2. 1863: Olympia Brown was ordained by the Universalist denomination... In 1961, the Universalists and Unitarians joined to form the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). The UUA became the first large denomination to have a majority of female ministers. In 1999-APR, female ministers outnumbered their male counterpart 431 to 422.
Who is the UUA?
Calls upon the UUA and its member churches, fellowships, and organizations immediately to end all discrimination against homosexuals in employment practices, expending special effort to assist homosexuals to find employment in our midst consistent with their abilities and desires...
and
Universalists are Christians who believe in universal salvation. They don't believe that a loving God could punish anyone to hell for eternity. Instead, they believe that everyone will be reconciled with God eventually.
Originally, all Unitarians were Christians who didn't believe in the Holy Trinity of God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Instead, they believe in the unity, or single aspect, of God.
and
Another issue which remains at the forefront of the Unitarian Universalist community is marriage equality (i.e. same-sex marriage). Unitarian Universalism fully supports the right of all committed couples to marry. Unitarian Universalist congregations, individuals, and the UUA staff continue to work to have these marriages legally sanctioned in every state.
So...on this list, the second denomination to ordain women has fully embraced the inclusion of the gay/lesbian/transgender population into all aspects of the community.
3. 1865: Salvation Army is founded and has always ordained both men and women.
This is the first organization that has ordained women who does not struggle with the homosexual issue. They offer relief assistance to all, regardless of orientation and/or lifestyle (which is a good thing), but declare the homosexual act and lifestyle to be sin.
4. 1880: Anna Howard Shaw was the first woman ordained in the Methodist Protestant Church, which later merged with other denominations to form the United Methodist Church.
The Methodist Protestant Church is no more; what is the United Methodist Church up to?
The UMC's official position (2004) was that all people are accepted into communion, but that same-sex marriages would not be performed and practicing homosexuals would not ordained.
Also in 2004
SAN FRANCISCO (UMNS) - A complaint has been filed against a United Methodist clergywoman for performing a series of gay wedding ceremonies after City Hall issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples./p>
The Rev. Karen Oliveto conducted seven ceremonies at San Francisco City Hall and an eighth in the sanctuary at Bethany United Methodist Church during the Feb. 15 worship service. Oliveto, Bethany's pastor, said she was acting on requests by the eight gay or lesbian couples after City Hall announced it would issue the marriage licenses. The pastor, who knew all the couples, said she took the requests as "an opportunity to extend pastoral care" to her parishioners.
More recently:
An associate pastor says she disclosed her homosexuality during a recent Sunday morning worship service "to share with the congregation part of my faith journey and how I've experienced God's grace."
The Rev. Kathleen Weber shared her story during the Sept. 30 service at Blaine Memorial United Methodist Church, where she has been on staff the past four years. She is a commissioned candidate for ministry in The United Methodist Church and is on track to be ordained next year.
The fourth denomination to ordain women is far from settled on the homosexual issue - and given that a lesbian is on track to be ordained, it would appear that they are going in the more liberal direction.
This post is already long... 75% of the first four denominations to ordain women are either now dealing with the homosexual issue (or have settled it in favor of ordaining homosexuals into ministry office.
Is this proof positive? Not clinical proof, but history does appear to tell us that when an organization starts moving toward liberalism, the trend is to become more liberal, not to swing back.
Suzanne
And suppose you did the same research on the abolition of slavery and found that an organization which was the first by over a century to actively repudiate slavery now promotes inclusion of homosexuals.
Suppose you found that the church organization which sent out the first foreign missionaries promotes inclusion of homosexuals.
It is interesting to note that jurisdictions which allow now homosexual marriage also have a much higher ratio of interracial marriage.
Are these findings indicative of a more liberal direction? Maybe. Is liberal antithetical to the gospel?
In fact, it might be possible to show that organizations which now promote inclusion of homosexuals, also promoted legal equality for women, the vote for women, right to work in a profession, etc.
In fact, the Salvation Army was a part of the purity movement and helped to raise the age of consent for sex.
Ellen
Since I'm talking majorities and trends, you could always do a post on that.
Suppose you found that the church organization which sent out the first foreign missionaries promotes inclusion of homosexuals.
Isn't there a story about the Apostle Thomas taking a little trip to China or somewhere in that area?
Or the Roman Catholic church (although they don't include homosexuals on purpose 😉
In fact, the Salvation Army was a part of the purity movement and helped to raise the age of consent for sex.
Yes. In fact, I mentioned that the Salvation Army is the one of the four that still takes a stand on homosexuality.
Are these findings indicative of a more liberal direction? Maybe. Is liberal antithetical to the gospel?
If you take a general pulse of liberal denominations, here are some questions to ask:
- do they accept the Trinity?
- what about homosexuals?
- inerrancy of Scripture?
I'm not saying to single out one or two, but what is the general trend?
My point is that both egalitarians and complementarians have their extremists.
I will continue to call abuse sin and to deal with it on that basis.
How will more central egalitarians deal with the extremists on that side?
Suzanne
I am saying that you could call this post Where does the abolition of slavery end up.
It would be just as fair.
You cannot repudiate every act of liberalism in our history. Do you really want anaesthetics to be denied women so they can suffer in childbirth as the scriptures teach?
How will more central egalitarians deal with the extremists on that side?
Every organization has extremists. The question is how much physical damage is being done by the extreme of each position.
Ellen
The question is how much physical damage is being done by the extreme of each position.
We can take a look at the extreme end of liberal Christianity by looking at the damage done by the homosexual lifestyle.
anal carcinoma, gay bowel disease, Lymphogranuloma Venereum , HIV is still primarily a gay disease in North America.
Support and acceptance of this lifestyle has as its consequence these diseases.
Sue
We can take a look at the extreme end of conservative by looking at the damage done by the male supremacy.
Women of all lifestyles die of cancer. However, the most common cause of death for pregnant women is homicide by the father of the child.
Let us leave out who is a Christian, we are talking about two extreme ends.
The homosexual rarely causes the death of the non-homosexual. But the patriarchal male causes the death of his female partner. Women today are in more danger from their male partners and husbands than from any other male on earth.
Sue
We can take a look at the extreme end of conservative by looking at the damage done by the male supremacy.
blaach - did I write that? 🙂
We can take a look at the extreme end of conservatism by looking at the damage done by male supremacy.
Ellen
The homosexual rarely causes the death of the non-homosexual. But the patriarchal male causes the death of his female partner.
Let's follow the logic. The homosexual rarely causes the death of a non-homosexual.
But let's talk partner (male or female). A homosexual with a deadly disease DOES cause the death of his partner.
Let us leave out who is a Christian, we are talking about two extreme ends.
Let's not. 😉
I'm a Christian. Talking to Christians. About Godly Christian leadership.
Sorry, I cannot leave out who is a Christian, when we're talking to Christians about theology.
Sue
Let us leave out who is a Christian, we are talking about two extreme ends.
I phrased that poorly, I meant whether they are Christian or not. That is HIV, I assume you are not restricting your HIV stats to those who are not Christians. So you are not just talking about monogamous Christian homosexuals, or are you. I don't know any chruch attending homoseuxuals myself, but I know many, many church attending violent men. Several of them pastors and one a theologian.
So, I just wanted to know, are the homosexuals with all these diseases in your church. The violent men have been in my church. Except that I don't know any women in my church shot my their husbands, but many battered and raped, many children who later some out about rape also.
Sue
Sorry for all the typos. But to the point I meant, the men I am talking about are conservative Christians, what about the people you are talking about.
Ellen
Sue, the homosexuals are most likely to be in the liberal denominations that accept and support homosexuality (like the ones that this post is about)
I would truly like you to produce any teaching by a complementarian (which I am able to intellectually separate from patriarchy) that endorses abuse.
I'm sorry, what were we talking about? Oh yes!
Liberal denominations slipping toward liberalism...
Sue
Sue, the homosexuals are most likely to be in the liberal denominations that accept and support homosexuality (like the ones that this post is about)
I suppose they exist, you seem to be afraid of something you don't know about, promiscuous homosexuals in the liberal church. I am not sure about this, but I am afraid of something I know about.
The violent man injures his innocent wife. She may also get cancer for any other reason. She may get HIV from a blood transfusion, who knows. This is not the same as homosexual partners who may or may not give each other cancer and HIV because they are promiscuous.
A promiscious partner of either sex may give his or her partner a disease any time.
So anyone can get cancer, some homosexuals and some other people may get HIV. That is seriously sad and is the extreme suffering of the liberal homosexual, I suppose if they are also promiscuous.
But the woman who is hit, the extreme of the male supremacy ending, will be hit.
She will also lose her basic human dignity, and carry with her the scars of her slavery, of female to male, the sense that God favours males, the knowledge that God doesn't want her to have what men have, the fredom to walk in and out of the door with freedom.
The Lesbian women I know, who don't attend church AFAIK, look very healthy in fact.
Ellen
You read fear into statistics.
Abuse is sin.
Complementarianism is not.
Ellen
The point is (STILL) that both egalitarians and complementarians have extreme ends, both extremes are sinful.
I work against the extreme that includes abuse. What are you doing about the extreme on the liberal end?
Sue
What do you want me to say, I hand out condoms - that is the prevention of aids. How does one prevent male violence? I don't think that is an issue in this discussion. You think it is enough to provide a refuge for the few who get out.
Anyway, I see you didn't read my comments so I won't spend more time on it.
You seem to think that Catherine Booth, who was the most vociferous defender of chastity and innocence there ever was, is just some unaccountable aberration and not worth discussing.
You compare some homosexuals getting sick, which happens to us all, with all victims of abuse being hit, which does not happen to us all.
Ellen
Sue, yes, I read them...do you think that if I only read your comments, then of course I'd agree with you?
Yes, I read, no I do not agree.
Some homosexuals get sick.
Some spouses get abused.
Yes, all victims get hurt, and all sick homosexuals are sick.
Complementarianism is about husbands leading their wives in godly ways and loving their wives as Christ loves the church.
That is not abuse.
Abuse is sin. Complementarianism is not.
Sue
Some homosexuals get sick. Everyone gets sick.
Some victims get hit. Everyone does not get hit.
Sue
It was your idea to argue the case from the extreme of each. First you mention the Quakers who were the first to take a stand against slavery. Then The Salvation Army.
Let's toss the Mormons in on the other extreme.
Maybe go back to the days of slavery, because then the freedom of women would not be the most pressing problem to deal with.
Anyway, you can see how silly it is to argue from extremes or "where does it end up". But if I had to chose, then I would say inclusion of homosexuals and freedom from slavery and vows of obedience for women. The extreme end of lack of freedom is deadly.
Ellen
Ah, but I'm talking about a wide group of people and you attempt to narrow it down.
wide group of people = homosexuals
wide group of people = women
narrow group of people = homosexuals with diseases that target homosexuals.
narrow group of people = victims of abuse.
So, now we have our definitions of "apples to apples" and "oranges to oranges".
Just as some homosexuals do not get diseases that are more common among homosexuals, some women do not get abused.
That's now the wide group/narrow group works.
All abuse is sin.
Complementarianism is about husbands leading their wives in godly ways and loving their wives as Christ loves the church.
That is not abuse.
Abuse is sin. Complementarianism is not.
Ellen
Let’s toss the Mormons in on the other extreme.
Oh, let's not. If we're talking about Christian denomination, let's only include Christians and not Mormons.
Let's not include people who deny the deity of Christ, deny the Trinity, depend on works for salvation, who teach that God was once a man and that men can become gods and who taught that black skin was the mark of Cain.
Or we can...we can take an anti-Trinitarian, anti-deity of Christ religion that teaches that men can become gods - and who sees their men as "pre-gods" and we can see how it would be easy for them to see women as lesser beings.
NOT like complementarians, who teach that women are co-heirs with Christ, equal in person and worth, who are to be loved as Christ loves the church.
Sue
Ellen,
You said in comment #4,
"We can take a look at the extreme end of liberal Christianity by looking at the damage done by the homosexual lifestyle."
So, I understand that
a) the extreme of being an egalitarian is the homosexual lifestyle.
b) The extreme of being a complementarian is being a male abuser.
You cannot say that being a woman is the extreme end of anything.
And you have neatly avoided acknowledging that the Quakers took a stand against slavery. Your post does not hold water. Egalitarianism is associated with the purity movement, foreign missions, abolition of slavery, votes for women, education for women, prison reform across Europe, and racial and social equality.
Sue
Let’s not include people who deny the deity of Christ, deny the Trinity, depend on works for salvation,
Then let's exclude most churches which accept the homosexual lifestyle.
It has to be the same boundaries for each side of the argument.
Ellen
And you have neatly avoided acknowledging that the Quakers took a stand against slavery.
It is obvious that they did.
Then let’s exclude most churches which accept the homosexual lifestyle.
Sue, I'm sorry that you don't consider liberal denominations to be Christians. I was not going to make that distinction, but you apparently do.
Sue
Sue, I’m sorry that you don’t consider liberal denominations to be Christians. I was not going to make that distinction, but you apparently do.
They won't be hurt by what I think of them. I am not that important.
Let's edit the post to say that egalitarianism leads to education for women, rights for women in Africa, access to the professions, abolition of slavery, raising the age of consent, right to vote, and so on.
I would just once like to read something factual about women.
Ellen
I got to that point about complementarianism.
Just once I'd like to read something factual about complementarianism.
What we have to deal with RIGHT NOW is that egalitarianism (in its extreme) does appear to endorse and support homosexuality.
Patriarchy (in its extreme) does appear to tolerate abuse.
I'm working on the sin of abuse, are you working on the sin of homosexuality?
Right now, though, I'm working on a date with my mattress.
Sue
What we have to deal with RIGHT NOW is that egalitarianism (in its extreme) does appear to endorse and support homosexuality.
I don't know where you get that from but it will have to wait another day.
Ellen
The most liberal of denominations are either struggling with the homosexual issue or have caved and totally endorsed homosexuals to all levels.
Note: I'm not including all liberals in this, only the extreme. Just as I don't include all complementarians in abuse, only the extreme.
How we handle the sinful extreme on our own side of the fence will matter in our credibility.
I've written to a couple of "partriachy" groups telling them exactly this. Even if you (generic you, not Sue) embrace the most conservative (or liberal) of theology, if you don't deal with the sin in your own camp, you WILL lose credibility and rightfully so.
Sue
I don't see a parallel.
You don't address the history of egalitarian women. You continue to associate the godly efforts of women throughout history to win rights such as owning property, not being beaten by their husbands, voting, being educated, and working in professions, along with the abolition of slavery with the inclusion of homosexuals.
If you want to associate everything on this list, then the question is, do we or don't we approve of the list?
You may talk about how it is not about our "rights" but which rights for women will you give up today. Will you practice this and turn in your student card?
You can't keep your rights and repudiate the movement.
Ellen
You can’t keep your rights and repudiate the movement.
Since I was talking about the end result, not the godly beginnings, I do see a parallel. I am speaking of bad end results, not good beginnings.
Bulimia and anorexia (bad things) can begin with a diet (good thing).
If the patriarchy movement began as a "push back" against radical feminism, that is a good thing. If they went to the extreme, that is a bad thing.
Many bad things had good beginnings.
Telling a woman that she does not HAVE to have "obey" in her vows is a good thing. Telling her that she MUST NOT, is where it swings the other way - you see, there are parallels to good things that have extreme endings on both sides.
You may talk about how it is not about our “rights” but which rights for women will you give up today. Will you practice this and turn in your student card?
If we are talking about extremes (and we are) I would take away the right of a woman to have a "partial birth abortion" on demand.
I would take away the "right" to a later term abortion because of a non-life threatening imperfection. There are babies aborted because of cleft palates and possible Down Syndrome.
Since the US court system is skewed in favor of women, I would take away the right of a woman to have an affair, go and live with the man she had an affair with and demand full custody of the children that she had with her husband, bringing the children to live with her and her (now) live in boyfriend (while still legally married to her husband). Further, I would take away her right to move the children to a different state (unless there is abuse on the part of the father).
I would also take away the rights of a man to do the same in the opposite, but the statistics tell us that the courts (at least in the US) are in favor of the mother.
You can’t keep your rights and repudiate the movement.
You are saying that in order to women to keep the vote that we have to embrace homosexual clergy?
I am not repudiating the entire movement, only the extreme.
As I repudiate the abusive extreme in the patriarchy camp.
Molly
I agree with Sue and Suzanne here... That liberal denominations are egalitarian does not prove that egalitarian thought "leads" to liberalism, no more than that the hyper-patriarchalists believe in husband-leaders (and most started as comps), therefore complementarian thought "leads" to hyper-patriarchy.
This is just more re-hashing of Wayne Grudems (terrible) logic. The crux of the argument is whether or not God's heart is best expressed by male rule or by male/female co-ruling.
My thoughts!
Molly
Btw, though, Ellen, I *really* agree with each "side" taking responsibility for the abusive elements in the extremes. Well said.
Ellen
Molly, that's all I was trying to get at. I know too many (and are related to too many) Godly egalitarians (my favorite sister-in-law is an elder in her church) to believe that it always heads in that direction.
I don't claim ownership of the extreme patriarchalism. I really don't expect egalitarians to claim ownership of the extreme. But it exists.
Sue
Then you should not demonize egalitarianism, an ethic from which all women of this generation have benefited.
Moderate complementarianism is leadership of the male regardless of personal suitability for a task. Moderate egalitarianism is mutual submission and sharing of tasks with the goal of the good of the couple or the good of the family in view, not the ego of the male.
Molly
I'm confused as to how the extreme you've given relates to egalitarianism. Grudem says it does because egals are denying the obvious interpretation of Scripture. But Grudem doesn't actually "get" the egal argument (hence he argues against it ineffectively, since he is often arguing against things that egalitarians don't actually believe).
The egalitarian argument is that men and women are created equal, designed to rule and reign *together.* Not over eachother----and (I wish I could some how make this heard) not a man over a woman, sure, but in the same way, NOT a woman over a man.
We don't look to Scripture to bolster our preconcieved idea, as Grudem and others assume/claim, but we looked to Scripture and found the idea there. It wasn't in avoidance of Christ that we found equality, but it was in His face.
I confess to feeling really frustrated right now, wishing there was some better way to communicate so that this misunderstanding can stop being perpetuated. That is not to say I want you to agree, but it is to say that the belief that egalitarianism births the acceptance of homosexual sin is to show a complete *miscomprehension* of what egalitarian doctrine is actually teaching.
About what you (and Grudem) claim egalitarianism has birthed: let me be very frank. The *act* of homosexuality is said in Scripture to be a sexual sin (as is adultery, and fornication, which includes all heterosexual sin outside of marrage---said to be JUST as sinful as homosexual sin).
A person with homosexual desires is NOT THE SIN, any more than a person with heterosexual desires. I wish I could shout the previous sentance from a loudspeaker, because I think most of the conservative church is unaware of that fact.
The *acts* of sexual activity outside of marriage are sin, and thus those things that fall under that mantle should not be encouraged or condoned by the people of God (though may I say that homosexual sin should be treated with MUCH more mercy than it currently is being greeted with by the conservative churches, as it's JUST one form of sin among many other types of sexual sin. Our modern day witch-hunt of the homosexual reminds me a LOT of the adulteress brought to Jesus by the religous leaders for stoning, but that's a rant for another day)...
Assuming that egalitarianism "brought in" pro-homosexual sex doctrines is to assume that egalitarianism exists because people twist the Scripture to make it say what tickles their fancy.
This is a GROSS misunderstanding/miscomprehension of what egalitarianism is actually saying.
There is NOTHING about egalitarianism that tickles ANY fancies.
We are free from heirarchal gender rule, yes, but we are *slaves to God.* The crux of the egalitarian message is that we are called to SERVE---ALL of us are called to serve in the bonds of Love's rule.
This means we are bound by Love to put others before self, bound by Love to give honor to our spouse, to prefer their opinion, to give them deference, to work to see them grow as an individual. We are called by Love to do the same to our children, to our friends and to all others we meet and relate with.
This is NOT some "made-up doctrine" that exists so that I can "get what I want" and finally get a bully-pulpit as a femalem, or nag my husband without guilt. Let me be very frank. Patriarchy was MUCH less demanding than Love is.
Patriarchy demanded outward submission and inward brain-shutting-down. Love wants me ALIVE and wants me wholly. Love tells me to be ALL THERE, not halfway. Sometimes I hate Love! Love says give, and give more---whenever Yahweh-who-is-Love fills, I pour, and He refills and I pour some more, and when I want to quit and say it's too hard, Love fills again and waits for me to pour. *Love doesn't quit.*
With patriarchy, I could do the outward things and let my inward parts be untouched. With Love, His burning coals are roasting on my inward altar, and nothing gets to escape the fire.
You don't get bathroom breaks with Love. You don't get to Love during your "on" hours and stop Loving during your "off" hours, clocking in and out. There ARE no "off hours" with Love. Love is always on. And Love always demands all of me that there is to give. I pour and then Love looks with delight at my emptiness, excited to fill me so that "we" get to pour out some more.
My former "marriage" to patriarchy was a burden that got so heavy I ended up literally falling---even me, a "wonder woman" sort who didn't think it was possible that I'd ever end up on a floor as a basket case one day. The old covenant works death, how could I think I would be exempt?
Love's burden is light. Freedom here is wide. There is LIFE abundant here, yes. And I am a baby in this Way, I am in love with Love, but don't think the meek and humble Lamb isn't a Lion at the same time. Consuming Fire is aptly named. With patriarchy, all I had to tithe was my submissive acceptance to the law. With Love, I am the tithe.
Molly
PS.
*embarrassed look*
I want to apologize. I kind of went on a serious rant there. I am really sorry.
Ellen
Molly, if I miss a point, please forgive me. I had to scroll down three times to read the whole thing (lol). I think this may be part of what gets me into trouble on your blog; when I try to respond to a post that is several feet long and then get three of them in a row, I miss things.
The reason that I appeal to the extreme is that I'm trying very hard to illustrate that both sides have extremes - abusive patriarchy is an extreme and I've written patriarchal groups asking them to deal publicly with it.
There are no (zero) denominations that ordain or accept practicing homosexuals that do not also ordain women...and who did not start down that road by ordaining women.
There ARE denominations that ordain women that DO NOT ordain or accept practicing homosexuals...so the extreme does not have to be so.
On the comp side, there are denominations that do not ordain women that are full bore patriarchalists who go to the abusive extremem.
There are also denominations that do not ordain women that develop teaching and leading gifts, that accept women as full equals, that teach mutual (but different) submission.
What I am trying to do is illustrate to those who keep on saying (complementarians do not believe in mutual submission) that there are those who do believe and teach mutual (but different) submission, who do develop the spiritual gifts of women, who do lead with love, not an iron fist and abuse.
I confess to feeling really frustrated right now, wishing there was some better way to communicate so that this misunderstanding can stop being perpetuated.
I hope you understand that this post was born out of the same frustration that you are feeling!
I can say, "there is a difference between patriarchy (as taught today) and complementarianism" and one says, "yeah, but what about..."
I can link to a post that talks about mutual submission and one says, "but let's talk about the ones who don't"
And then there's one - I'm beginning to feel as though the reason she comments is so that she can get offended and make statements like "I should have known better than to try to communicate with comps".
This same one gave lip service to forgiveness, yet brings it up again - this is not forgiving of the debt.
This same one has not appeared to claim any responsibility for any misunderstanding.
With these two, I cannot do anything right and if they want to talk about the extreme, then they should speak to the issue of the extremes on their own side - which they do not want to do.
This is my frustration and these two are the reasons that I am nearly ready to just stop reading that blog.
On the rest of your "rant" (I'll start getting offended by yours about the time you get offended at mine, which I think is a long way off)
You speak of love and the law of love should be the primary motivator of all we do.
That is the difference I tried to communicate a while ago when Wayne asked somebody to try to articulate the difference between patriarchy and complementarianism.
Patriarchy sees the leadership structure as the goal and love functions within that goal.
Complementarians see love as the goal and sacrificial love functions within that goal.
I feel way more loved in a complementarian relationship than I ever felt in an egalitarians relationship - even after the more difficult issues were worked through and my husband turned to the church.
I do not think I would function well in what seems to be defined as "patriarchy" (as taught today).
With patriarchy, all I had to tithe was my submissive acceptance to the law. With Love, I am the tithe.
I love the way you put this.
Ellen
Another note: I would feel much more confident of an appeal for all to examine their comments for logical fallacies if examples from both camps had been used, instead of all the examples being aimed at comps.
If the request appealed to examples from both camps it would appear that the request actually appealed to both camps.
I will not say anything; I wonder in an egalitarian will address any of the issues that have come up?
Sue
Ellen,
You write,
1. There are no (zero) denominations that ordain or accept practicing homosexuals that do not also ordain women…and who did not start down that road by ordaining women.
One can also say,
There are no (zero) denominations that ordain or accept practicing homosexuals that do not also ordain black people …and who did not start down that road by ordaining blacks.
Is this useful?
2. You also write,
There are also denominations that do not ordain women that develop teaching and leading gifts, that accept women as full equals, that teach mutual (but different) submission.
I would have to say that,
There are zero denominations that do not ordain women that accept women as *full* equals.
You can say they accept women as equals, but not as "full equals", without degrading the use of language.
3. I agree that there have been logical fallacies on both sides. I cannot hope to deal with them all - but I acknowledge they exist.
4. Each and every woman is indebted to egalitarian ethic for women's access to education, professions, not being beaten, voting, etc. I don't see anyone acknowledge that where egalitarianism has brought women today in the law, is where we want to be as women.
5. I don't see anyone acknowledge that in moving toward mutual submission and concern for abuse, complementarianism is moving in the direction of egalitarianism.
I submit that moving toward egalitarianism is something which complementarians are doing, and that it is something good.
I would like to see the topic of this post addressed, and some kind of acknowledgment that in fighting for women's rights, egalitarians are doing a good thing.
6. I feel way more loved in a complementarian relationship than I ever felt in an egalitarians relationship - even after the more difficult issues were worked through and my husband turned to the church.
This is irrelevant, I am sure there were some slaves who were better fed as slaves than later as itinerant workers. As you know, many women could say the opposite. Is it going to sway anyone if a woman says that she feels more loved in an egalitarian relationship than a complementarian relationship? The surveys have been done and the evidence would suggest that this is more common. But are we going to use these surveys as evidence? We looked at them yesterday. What do you think? I find it hard to say whether they are useful.
Sue
I also want to add that I find much of what is said on all sides to be harsh
However, I was on a blog where Leigh Ann was able to address me and give me a piece of her mind, and I was not allowed to respond. All my comments were moderated out, so it looks as if I had no rebuttal. That kind of behaviour, the silencing of one party and not the other is unacceptable. So, it may not be perfect but "complegalitarian" is trying something unique.
Ellen
There are no (zero) denominations that ordain or accept practicing homosexuals that do not also ordain black people …and who did not start down that road by ordaining blacks.
Is this useful?
Yes. Absolutely. It shows that a movement that started out good can have a bad ending.
It shows that a movement that started out at the center can move to the extreme.
Just as complementarians have the abusive patriarchal extreme.
5. I don’t see anyone acknowledge that in moving toward mutual submission and concern for abuse, complementarianism is moving in the direction of egalitarianism.
Except that it has never been Biblical to abuse a spouse. Mutual (but different) submission has always been Biblical.
What I see complementarians doing is moving more toward the center, maybe under the influence of egalitarians. That does not mean that they must or will abandon godly and loving male leadership.
A more central place can be a good place to be; extremes on both sides are not a good place to be.
I can easily accept that egalitarians may be keeping some complementarians from sliding into into the extreme. Can you accept that complementarians may be keeping some egalitarians from slipping into the extreme on that side?
As far as Leigh Ann goes, I rarely moderate comments; when I do it's a result of a direct personal attack on a person. I think it has happened one time and that time I didn't delete the comment, I edited it so that the words were unreadable until the person had the chance to edit their own comment.
Sue
I only posted about Leigh Ann so if she is reading this she will know that I was unable to respond to her elsewhere. I appreciate being able to mention this here. I certainly did not mean to imply that you moderate comments, Ellen.
Yes. Absolutely. It shows that a movement that started out good can have a bad ending.
So the title of this post really means (We acknowledge that complementarianism can end up bad and having said that) where does egalitarianism end up?
Okay, good question. So now - we know monarchies can end up bad, and having said that, where does democracy end up?
And the answer is, democracy has lots of problems but it is the best there is on a human level. On earth we live as humans, how can humans best meet each others needs, and have their own needs met? In a democracy (or representative republic - for those who don't accept what the US govt says about what kind of govt it is.)
You write,
Mutual (but different) submission has always been Biblical.
Mutual submission (without it being different) has also always been biblical. Some believe think that the Bible tells us what mutual submission looks like when it says,
discuss with one another
say to one another
ask one another
love one another
devoted to one another
honor one another
live in harmony with one another
accept one another
instruct one another
greet one another
agree with one another
encourage one another
serve one another
bear with one another
be kind and compassionate with one another
speak to another with psalms, etc.
submit to one another
forgive one another
admonish one another
spur one another on to love
do not slander one another
don't grumble against one another
offer hospitality to one another
clothe yourselves with humility toward one another
have fellowship with one another
lay down your lives for one another
That is what egalitarians think mutual submission looks like, and it is not 'different'. There is no description of *different* submissions in the scriptures that I am aware of. There are different circumstances, and women in the scriptures were in patriarchal marriages whether they wanted it or not. They did not have equal legal rights to their husband. So their submission might look different but as a work of the spirit, submission is submission. A man or woman might be called to suffer as a Christian, to experience the sufferings of Christ, but there is no such thing in the Bible as "male Christians do this, and female Christians do that." Each one is responsible for managing their household, for pleasing their spouse, and each one is responsible for living for the kingdom.
Ellen
So the title of this post really means (We acknowledge that complementarianism can end up bad and having said that) where does egalitarianism end up?
Or I could simply say that one of the posts in my drafts folder is titled "Pushing Back", a study in the extreme of the comp side.
Molly
In my opinion, the weakness of the egalitarian party would have NOTHING to do with applauding homosexual (or any other out-of-marriage sexual) activity. Sue put it rather well, I thought, with her example. It's not that I'm trying to hide from egalitarian flaws, it's just that it's illogical to say that egalitarianism *causes* churches to be pro-sexual-sin. Just because Grudem did it doesn't mean everyone else should go perpetuating it. (*grin*).
HOWEVER,
I would say the biggest "weakness" with egalitarian theology is the same "weakness" we have whenever grace is preached. Our biggest weakness, and something we must continually gaurd against, is that both spouses would hear that they are free of heirarchy, and yet NOT UNDERSTAND THE REST OF THE MESSAGE.
In fighting against what we believe to be a misinterpreted view of gender roles, we must be VERY careful to share the *whole* thing---that the Christian life is supposed to be one where the fruit of the Spirit charactarizes us and our relationshiops (the Spirit's fruit is not gender-based, but for ALL of us), where the kind of Love Paul talked about toward the end of Romans is what our "Law" is, where we treat our spouse with honor, love and deference, regardless of gender.
If a woman only hears that she "doesn't have to get bossed around anymore," and if a man only hears that he doesn't "have to have the burden of being the boss anymore," we've *majorly* missed the mark, because that's not even what it's really about.
The picture of the initial creation of man and woman at the end of Genesis 1? Now that pictures is a lot bigger than simply escaping the burden of Fall-based "gender roles." It's all about two people standing together as one (bone of my bone...) "taking dominion" together for the glory of GOD, working to see His Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.
If they do NOT hear the part about Love being the rule, about putting their spouse first, etc, than we are no different from the world, where "self" is the rule of law.
Egalitarians must use their liberty to serve others, not to serve themselves. In my opinion, this is what Comp's should push back with, because this truly is the part of our theology that we must be very careful not to allow to weaken.
Ellen
In my opinion, the weakness of the egalitarian party would have NOTHING to do with applauding homosexual
I have also said that the argument against complementarianism should have nothing to do with abuse...
It’s not that I’m trying to hide from egalitarian flaws, it’s just that it’s illogical to say that egalitarianism *causes* churches to be pro-sexual-sin.
If it did, then all egalitarian churches would allow for sexual sin. And they don't.
It sounds as if there really aren't any extremes in the egal side, right?
Where do you think those denominations started?
Molly
I agree, Ellen. One could legitimately say that a theology that teaches people that husbands are the leaders of their wives *could* be misconstrued by a domineering male as a "right" to be domineering. However, if that male listened carefully to the full complimentarian message, he would learn that his leadership is not supposed to be domineering. Therefore, abuse is a weakness of the complimentarian doctrine ONLY if a domineering man hears one part of the message and not the whole thing.
In the same way, a person inclined toward selfishness can lean towards his/her marriage being "all about his rights" as opposed to submitting/loving the other person, IF he/she only hears one part out of the whole egalitarian message.
As far as claiming that liberal denominations started because people through out gender roles, I would simply beg of you to study the last century's worth of church history (through someone other than Grudem).
I do believe Grudem is well-intentioned, so I do not mean to say anything disparaging about him. I just think he's got eyes that filter everything through the gospel of gender roles, and I think it really messes with his ability to see and think circumspectly.
I really respect the man (and have his Systematic Theology book on my shelf, AND have read it cover to cover...even though I'm not a Calvinist, no less!), but in this arena of gender, I feel his wisdom is often tainted by a hyper-focus on his gender theory.
Warmly (literally---waving from "warm" [aka, above freezing] Alaska, too---we still have yet to have a snow actually "stay snow," and that's odd for us by this time of year),
Molly
Ellen
I actually haven't read Grudem on this topic, except for I think one short blog post.
I spent enough time trying to show a difference between the abuse and more central position that I went looking for an extreme - that's the one I came up with.