Why Egalitarians and Complementarians need each other

[Matt Williams]

Brothers and Sisters,

The latest series of discussions of complementarianism and egalitarianism have released considerable strength of feeling on boths sides. In part I suspect this is because it is an issue that often seems taboo, like we can't talk about it. I know many people are frustrated by that, and I hope some of those frustrations have been not just vented but released.

However today my thoughts have turned more irenic, and I regret some of my own more intemperate words, and ask forgiveness from anyone hurt by them. I have myself been hurt by not a few words of my brothers, and I assure them I forgive and let go of those too.

I wish to explore another angle. The more I read of people's views the more it seems the general debate may not be so much about the texts, although as evangelicals we like to think it is. But just because the discussion is focussed on the texts doesn't mean it is really about them. The thread on the sufficiency of scripture exposed one angle of presupposition that affects us, but I don't think explains the difference comprehensively.

Then it occurred to me: is it possible that that this is really about whether we read the bible as social conservatives or social liberals? In other words, do we expect that the apostolic church immediately established a benchmark for the social structure of the church for all time, not to be altered to the right or the left, because we like the comfort of knowing exactly how things ought to be; or do we expect the apostles constructed a church out of the society they had, yanking it in the direction of re-dignifying women as much as was viable in the society of the time while pulling back from bringing shame on the gospel in the public arena (so they would say now, in fact, it shames the gospel in the public arena to withhold ministry roles from women)?

To put it other ways, a social conservative might instinctively read the bible seeking an ideology of timeless structure to be guarded, and a social liberal (not to be confused with theological liberals) instinctively treats ideologies (including the gospel) as thrusts toward progress, with outworkings and latent potential. The former is probably attracted to the stability of creation theology; the latter to the awakenings and possibilities of eschatology. Indeed the former probably understands eschatology in static terms, the latter in active terms; and the former may think of creation in completed terms, the latter in ongoing terms. The social conservative probably focuses their Christology on unpacking how things are; the social liberal on revealing how things can and will be. Theologically speaking, neither is right without the other.

And if we put it like that, perhaps we need each other's correction more than we think, and holding ourselves together is all the more important. For God does not change; but the world must change to be redeemed; and the social conservative will be tempted to equate worldly aspects of the way things "are" with the divinely ordained way things "should be"; and the social liberal will be tempted to run away with ideological possibilities in a way that changes even God (as in open theism).

(Of course, our very social conservatism or liberalism is unlikely to be the driver, for that worldview itself is probably a function of deeper aspects of our psychology, both natural and nurtured. And it is possible that some of us, for cultural reasons, have developed a social conservatism in the spiritual arena that doesn't slot neatly with a social liberalism in our dealings outside the church, or vice-versa.)

Having written thousands of words on the main disputed text, I'm a little disappointed that it might be really not about them, at the end of the day! I hope it is still profitable in critiquing some logical fallacies, and doubtless has some of its own. This is just preliminary musing, but I am suddenly wondering if our instinct to read as social conservatives or social liberals may, in fact, turn out to have been the key to the division between us all along. These are deeply ingrained instincts, both with their place theologically. If women's ordination causes us to divide along those lines, we will probably all suffer, like two tug-o-war teams each collapsing themselves when the rope snaps.

Hmmm. Thoughts? And what to do about it??

Blessings
Matt

[Jason]

Matt,

I think you have a point about culture - both of society and our own families - influencing how we read the texts in front of us.

However, I do think your characterisation of the socially 'conservative' and 'liberal' Christian groups is a bit of a caricature. For instance, the stuff on eschatology, I would suggest, is very wide of the mark in its analysis.

I also notice that the influence of feminism and post-modernism never got a run in your post.

There are some other theological/social aspects that might be included. How might current notions of 'equality,' 'justice,' and 'rights' have influenced our readings?

Matt Williams wrote:

In other words, do we expect that the apostolic church immediately established a benchmark for the social structure of the church for all time, not to be altered to the right or the left, because we like the comfort of knowing exactly how things ought to be; or do we expect the apostles constructed a church out of the society they had, yanking it in the direction of re-dignifying women as much as was viable in the society of the time ...

I just want to take issue with the comments above for a moment. First, I would suggest that 'the apostolic church immediately [establishing] a benchmark for the social structure of the church for all time' needs to be rephrased because it's misleading. Did the apostles establish, or were they simply affirming a pre-existing structure. If they affirmed it, was it simply because they were trapped in their own culture? Or, regardless of culture, did they seek to set an agenda that, in part, matched with the surrounding cultural context (in male hierarchy in church and family leadership), and yet was significantly different at points?

Second, to argue that the apostles yanked the structure of the surrounding culture as much as viable in the direction of re-dignifying women may well be to deny the implications of their own gospel - in other words, the apostles were a bit gutless at worst, or pragmatically driven at best on the issue of women's leadership of mixed congregations.

I have a question of my own for anyone who wants to have a crack at it: Is it possible that the Bible might advocate women in 'secular' leadership roles over men, while not necessarily supporting their leadership over a mixed church congregation? (I know the latter part of this question is the very issue in dispute)

[Matt Williams]

Hi Jason,

I don't think you've grasped what I'm trying to say (probably a failure of explanation on my part, since these are nascent ideas for me).

Firstly, I'm trying to draw a polar distinction rather than a binary or categorical one: so no-one will belong exclusively to one pole but most people will incline towards one more than the other. So of course it will sound like cariacature if you try to think of the poles as actual people, but that doesn't invalidate the framework.

Secondly, I'm not driving at something at as high a level as a consciously ideological position like feminism, patriarchalism, post-modernism, modernism, equality, justice or rights, or even the conscious commitment to social conservatism or social liberalism. I was only speculating about how it might play out in various areas of theology, but quibbles on those are not the key point.

I am trying to drive at something very basic, to excavate something below our usual self-awareness; and that is a kind of default disposition towards the phenomenon of the "idea" itself. I've noticed some people tend to approach ideas primarily as things to be defined, repeated, delineated, distinguished, preserved, defended. Others tend to approach ideas primarily as things to mine, grow things in, develop, flower, recreate, intersect, push for implications and potential. We see the former tendency in theologians like Clement of Rome, who was largely a Paulinist, or more recently Calvinists like Berkhof and Reymond, not to mention Grudem; who valiantly defend more or less existing systems of theology in the terms of those systems; the latter tendency in people as diverse as Justin Martyr, Aquinas, Luther, Schleiermacher, Barth, Moltmann and Grenz who wrestle to reinvent the paradigms of doing theology. Of course no-one is exclusively one or the other, but there are tendencies.

What I am trying to get to the bottom of is why it looks completely obvious to complementarians that their position is biblical; and completely obvious to egalitarians that their position is biblical. This is not to second guess that one or the other is right about women's ministry, nor to suggest it doesn't matter at all. But I am thinking that the implication may be this: now the culture no longer furnishes us all with a powerful patriarchal assumption that undermines even seeing another way to look at women, we are discovering that the scriptures read by people closer to one pole in their approach to ideas will probably look egalitarian; and the scriptures read by people closer to the other pole will probably look complementarian.

The end result is that the tug-o-war on women's ordination will probably be perennial and unresolvable, but also that actual division betwen the two parties would be good for neither; because it could turn out that creative theologians lose their anchor and conservative theologians lose their relevance; or that constructive theologians drift fatally away from upholding the unchanging nature of God and that dogmatic theologians cease discovering fresh possibilities for redemption of their thoughts and actions and ministries. That doesn't imply the mutual challenge on the particular topic of women's ordination is not worth doing, but it does call for a certain realism, point to a possibility for mutual appreciation, and encourage careful consideration of how (hopefully not "if") we are going to live together without tearing one another or our fellowship apart.

Blessings
Matt

[Andrew Bowles]

It's a good point, Matt, about the 'pre-cognitive' part of how we develop our theology. I read a post on this blog recently regarding 'tastes' in theology that makes a similar point.

http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to 27th June.