More Thoughts on Complementarianism

I have been in conversation with someone concerning the God-given roles of men and women in the church and in the home. I thought it would be beneficial to show my response to some rather interesting points. I hope that it all makes sense. Below are the statements from the one making comments (which are in regular type), along with my original statements which are in brackets, tiny text and a different font [like this], and my current statements which are bolded like this. Please remember this as you read through.

I can only hope this makes sense to anyone reading it other than myself and for whom it was written. Maybe it will only spark more questions, but then, that’s okay. Please click on the link if you would like to read the original posts and responses (Not an Issue of Capability but of Responsibility) and (A Comment on Complementarianism)

- - - - - - -

Hi Pastor Ed,

Here is my ridiculously long reply to you. Unless you have specific comments that you ask me to respond to, I will go away and be a pebble in some other complementarian's boot.

[First, whether or not my statement is in compliance with Wayne Grudem is not the issue.]

Point taken. I was simply pointing out that a major complementarian, and one who was deeply influential in developing the Danvers statement, which you use as a template for your church’s gender policy, has said at least one thing to the contrary of “it’s not about female capability”. (Sorry if that was badly punctuated.)

I still have not seen the point made that Grudem actually believes what you claim him to believe. The small Grudem quote you cited was taken out of context and does not read to most as you have taken it. Do you have other examples?

[Mr. Grudem did not say that women were incapable or mentally limited in their abilities, even as it comes to teaching, leadership in the church and the analysis of doctrine. I see that you took Grudem out of context and then came to some illogical conclusions. A disposition, as Grudem uses the word, is not about ability, but how one is inclined to go about accomplishing a particular task.]

“Disposition” was probably not the clearest term to use to explain the difference between men and women in an area of mental ability. I wonder why Grudem used it?

For instance, what does this sentence really mean: “Polly has the ability to think logically, but her disposition is to be illogical.” Whatever her ability, Polly’s natural tendency, or inclination, is to act in an opposite manner to her ability. Her ability ought to come into question when she persistently is disposed to act in an opposite manner. Do people with innate logical ability have a perpetual desire to act in opposition to their abilities and behave illogically?

If I said, “Ted Bundy had the ability to be good, but his disposition was to commit acts of sociopathic sadism…” would his ability or his disposition be the stronger evidence of his traits as a person?

WE AGREE - If disposition was "not the clearest term to use" as you said, then how can you justify going to such great lengths to assume what Grudem meant by playing such word games? By way of definition, the word "dispostion" is not about ability but about attitude or temperment. One of the men in my church told me that he was seeing some laziness creep into his son’s life. This young man has the capability of doing his chores, school work and the like, but a positive “disposition” or attitude toward such things has been lacking.

I think you are wrongly making “disposition” synonomous with “ability” or “capability.” The young man certainly has the capability but is lacking the right disposition or temperament.

Why is it that in general (notice I am making a general statement) women tend to or have a greater disposition toward shopping? Is it that men in general are incapable of shopping? No, there are certainly men who have the capability to shop and there are some men who can shop better than some women. However, here’s the kicker, the Word of God does not say that a man should or should not shop, regardless of his capability or disposition.

With regard to whether or not a woman should lead, teach or have authority in the church, regardless of capability or disposition, it is not her responsibility according to the Word of God. The responsibilites for leading, both in the church and in the home, are clearly the responsibility of the men. Some men do this well, others are neglectful or slothful, yet it is still their responsibility.

1 Timothy 3:1-5
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

1 Timothy 2:12
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

1 Peter 3:1-4
3:1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

1 Corinthians 11:3 and 9
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. . .9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

I could go on with Scripture but these clearly indicate that the men’s responsibility is to lead and teach in the home and in the church and the women’s responsibility to help to that end. So, in general, God has granted a disposition to men to their end and women a disposition to their end. Such dispositions are certainly subject to abuse by means of sin on the part of both men and women. But this does not change the Scriptural mandate.

Rather than parse Grudem’s words, consider carefully the Word of God and what it says about gender roles. Do you find the above Scriptures equally distasteful as you find Grudem’s statement? And, more to the point, who cares what Grudem says? If he reflects Scripture, so be it. If he does not, then reject it. But it appears to me that you are overly parsing his words to fit your own preconceived misconceptions of complementarianism.

[He is stating that in general a man’s disposition is better suited than a woman’s for teaching and leading the church. Men, when following the mandates of the Lord, do tend to be better disciplinarians, better teachers and better systematizers of doctrinal truth.]

This is an assertive statement, but it needs proof.

If a man is following the mandates and presciptions of the Word of God, then it follows that he will be blessed of God in such God-given pursuits. This would be equally true for women. The proof is found in the obedient lives of God’s people fulfilling their God-given roles.

[It is interesting that with some 2000 years of church history, the great theological thinkers have been men. And before anyone says that is only because men have suppressed women, women of all ages have fought against this and today, in an age where women have the best opportunity to show forth doctrinal prowess, there is yet no true woman theologian who ranks with the likes of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Spring, Ryle, Hodge, Warfield, or Lloyd-Jones. Even in the contemporary setting no true woman theologian has been noted along with R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur or John Piper.]

Let’s assume that theological greatness requires at least three things in addition to natural ability: 1)access to certain types of previous knowledge such as the work of previous theologians and philosophers, as well as scripture 2)an environment that cultivates and nurtures thought, and 3)the ability to express one’s opinions in some form (likely written) that will have a means of survival for posterity.Please remember that women were almost completely excluded from advanced scholarly life throughout most of history. Elite universities where serious theological scholarship went occurred, were exclusively male. Any woman who wanted to be a theologian would have done so in an atmosphere secluded from other scholars, with limited resources and with virtually no ability to publicize her views. To suggest that a great female theologian could have sprung up under these circumstances is unfair in the extreme.

But a number of females have “sprung up” throughout history who defied the male-dominated fields to have their names remembered. What of Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of England; or Golda Meir Prime Minister of Israel; or Catherine the Great Empress of Russia; or Amelia Earhart or Joan of Arc.

Why is there no female John MacArthur today? Frankly, I don’t know why there would be one. Are men like Piper, Sproul and MacArthur nurturing female talent? Do any of them have female protegees? Is a worthy female theologian to expect speaking or teaching offers? Will she be able to network in the current environment of male theologians? If the answers to these questions is “no” then it should be obvious why women are not pursuing theology careers.

Maybe women have preferred to devote themselves to linguistics, medicine, administration or other specialties that they can use on the mission field where those skills are welcome in full-time ministry.

I find it interesting how many women on the mission field I am aware of are most happy and content following their husbands and serving as a helpmate to their ministry. And those who serve in the “other specialties” may or may not be violating any Scriptural mandate. So maybe “women have preferred to devote themselves” to such things because they have no disposition to pursue violating Scripture.

[This is not because women are mentally incapable of knowing and understanding such truth, but in the context of communicating and administering this truth, women’s dispositions are not geared like men. In general, a godly woman’s communication of truth, while it may be theologically accurate, does not come across with same authority as that of godly man.]

It would be more accurate to say that women generally are not allowed to speak with authority. Given the opportunity, female evangelists have risen up and spoken the truth to thousands.

This is probably not the time to bring up the fact that numerous male theologians have produced damaging writings and theological movements.

Yes, men are sinners and are prone (huh, they have a disposition) to twist the truth. It is not that they are incapable of knowing and teaching truth, but some refuse to go about it God’s way. Those men who, by God’s help and by obedience to the Word, have their dispositions changed by God, become effective leaders and teachers for God’s church at large. By the way, women have also produced damaging writings and theological movements (i.e. Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Science movement).

[Grudem also stated (this you left out) that a woman’s general disposition is better suited for relational and community oriented aspects of church life.]

Not only can this not be proven as biblical, but there are a number of scriptural examples to the contrary of this assertion.

Both men and women have a responsibility to the relational and community aspects of the church. It is simply that women tend to have a better disposition to seeing this happen. Again, Grudem did not say that women were not capable of teaching or of rational and logical anylsis of doctrine, but rather that men, in general (not always), are “better suited” for such by means of men’s general dispositions. If given a choice between something that is “good” versus something that is “better” – I will take the better every time. To be sure, there are times when men disobey God’s mandates and there is very little “better” to be found. This is to men’s shame. When the men of Israel forsook the LORD, being disobedient to His Word and their responsibilities, what was one of God’s punishments for them? To be ruled by children and women. Isaiah 3:12 says,

O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths.

[To conclude, as you did, that what Grudem means is that women are “somewhere between and adult man and a child in their ability to be rational and logical” is faulty – it was never about ability, but inclination or disposition.]

All right, I’ll amend my comment: Grudem’s statement essentially means that women are somewhere between an adult man and a child in their disposition or inclination to be logical and rational.

For some reason, that does not make me feel any better.

No, you still have missed the point – Grudem’s statement is not about the ability of a woman to be logical or rational but rather whether or not her disposition toward rational and logical anylisis of doctrine is the “best” suited for such things. It is not so much about if women can be rational and logical about it, but rather how women tend to approach doctrine. Remember that with regard to doctrine, the first woman was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).

[Now here is a statement for you to sink your teeth into. I believe that the Bible presents us with a picture for godly male leadership in the home and in the church that if followed would have godly women lovingly and most willingly desiring to follow such leadership.]

If this is true, then why must so much pressure be put on women to submit? Why not forget the women and work on the men?

We (Hope CBC and other like minded churches) do not put pressure on women to submit. In fact, as I have had opportunity to preach on the subject (which has not come up for quite a while now – about three or four years ago when I preached through 1 Peter, specifically 1 Peter 3), I usually exhort the men all the more to truly love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5:25-28). I do not feel as though the problems in the church today are primarily the fault of women. Rather I believe the problem is with men who have abdicated their God given roles as husbands and fathers. Because the husband is the head of the wife (1 Corinthians 11:3), he finds himself in a position of inescapable leadership. A husband cannot successfully refuse to lead. If he rebels against his God-given role, then he leads poorly, but he cannot escape his responsibility. No, the pressure is not primarily upon women but upon men to be obedient to the Word.

[When this Biblical method of leadership is interrupted or abandoned, the church suffers. The feminization of the church may result in churches that are more relational, more nurturing and big on community, but by and large such churches will be woefully weak doctrinally leaving people with improper understandings of God and worse yet, false assurances of genuine faith.]

I hear this all the time. Give some direct examples of “feminization” in the church. Specifically I would like to know of things that are outside of biblical example.

Let me quote from Douglas Wilson here, who cites that the rise of an evangelical feminism came about by the decline of orthodox Calvinism in the nineteenth century. .

The older Calvinist establishment was perceived as austere and harsh (and in the Yankee culture of New England, it frequently was). This revolt had manifestations on both the right-wing and the left-wing. The left-wing anti-Calvinists were the Unitarians, who captured Harvard in 1805. The right-wing anti-Calvinists were the revivalists, typified by leaders such as Charles Finney, who were greatly swelled with a humanistic, democratic spirit which they all thought was the Holy Ghost....

The women with time on their hands provided a ready audience for these ministers, and the anti-Calvinist ministers provided a suitably sentimental gospel for the women accustomed to their feminized literary entertainment. So an alliance was formed between the clergymen and the women, and a new spiritual norm was established within the Church.

All these developments, centered largely in New England, were not followed for the most part by the more conservative and agrarian South. But the new regime of feminization came to the Southern church as well. The War Between the States decimated the strong masculine leadership of the South for all intents and purposes. The men were no longer leading because the men were dead. Since that time (exaggerating only slightly) southern churches have been run by three women and the pastor…

This is because modern evangelicalism has been coveantally castrated for well over a hundred years. It is high time they got some ministers, and a Bible, to match their effeminate condition.

By and large, men have abdicated their roles in leadership in the church. By large there are very few men involved with teaching other men. Sunday School classes are by and large taught only by women, leaving young boys without a masculine example of godliness in these settings. While women are certainly called to teach other women and children, this is not to the exclusion of men teaching the women and children. In fact, Titus 2:3-5 has more to do with the practical aspects of godliness rather than the doctrinal side, implying that such doctrine will be taught to the women and children by their husbands/fathers and godly male leadership (obviously there doctrine and practice are linked and therefore there will be doctrine taught along with practice).

[I don’t need anymore proof of the failure of women in leadership in the home and in the church than what we see taking place all around us.]

Men are still running most churches as far as I can see. Any specific examples of females making a hash of things?

I question if some churches are really benefiting from godly male leadership. Many of the men in churches today have no clue as to what it means to be a godly leader. A woman or women do not need to have the title Pastor or Elder to “run” the church. I see that too many male leaders have become too concerned with community and relational things to the detriment of doctrine. Community without doctrine is just as damning as doctrine without practice.

[Men need to be men and lead, according to God’s Word. Women need to be women and faithful follow their godly heads (fathers, husbands, brothers) as they picture all who follow the true head who is Christ the Lord.]

Brothers? Are women supposed to assign themselves a near relative as a “head” if no father or husband is available? If I were in this hypothetical situation, I'm wondering how I would broach the subject to my brothers?

My point is that biblically speaking, it is in women’s best spiritual interest to be under the protection of godly male leadership. If the husband/father relationship is missing, then other avenues should be pursued. I can’t begin to tell you how much harm has come to women I know whose fathers abdicated their God-given role as spiritual protector.

[God has given leadership responsibilities to men who must seek to faithfully administer those responsibilities. God has given complementary responsibilities to women who must seek to faithfully administer those responsibilities.]

This seems unduly euphemistic. If one person is a leader, the other is a follower. If one person is a head, the other person is a subordinate.

A woman’s perpetual role is not to initiate and carry out goals of her own, but to assist her male “head” in achieving his goals. Can you understand why women view this as a stripping away of their personal integrity?

The highest goal of saved humanity is bringing glory to God through Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:31). Men and women are to find their ultimate fulfillment in honoring the directives of God’s Word. Men are to love their wives, provide for them and be a true husband. The word “husband” is an agricultural term referring to tending the garden, (i.e. pulling the weeds, watering, etc). Biblically, a husband is to provide the environment in which a wife can truly blossom spiritually whereby she becomes as the Proverbs 31 woman, a woman who finds her fulfillment in serving the needs of her family to the glory of God. This is the woman of whom it is said in the Word of God –

Proverbs 31:31
Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates.

- - - - - - -

I hope that some sense could be made of all this.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed