The Peace of Complementarianism
A couple days ago I saw a headline for an article on The Federalist that didn't really entice me. The post was titled "The Alt-Right is What Happens When Society Marginalizes Men." I wasn't interested because it sounded like the focus would be justifying the alt-right, which I had no interest in reading. Yesterday I found out it was written by Owen Strachan, whom usually writes insightful pieces, so I gave it a try. Sure enough, the headline didn't justify the article, which was actually very thoughtful. It spoke of the barren landscape of American manhood and how the alt-right rose to give voice to their frustrations and anger. Strachan was not defending the alt-right, rather making the point that a society that tells men they aren't needed risks this alternative manhood. This disgusting alt-right that expresses itself through memes, consumes volumes of pornography, and contributes nothing to society makes a bad situation worse, and has no place in the Church. This was pretty much the thrust of the article.
However, since Strachan comes to this from a complementarian worldview, there was indeed backlash. Even though the focus was on what sadly passes for manhood today, folks like Rachel Held Evan went a little crazy:
Anyway, I shouldn't have engaged on twitter because it's pointless. It did however get me thinking more about the whole complementarian-egalitarian debate. At street level, complementarianism speaks of a God who created man and woman differently, with different natural abilities and talents, and then instructed them to share together life in a way that complements each other's abilities and talents. Meanwhile, egalitarianism says it's wrong to think men and women have different natural abilities and talents that would lead to different roles, and instead they must be equals in all aspects of society and marriage.
At face value, egalitarianism makes sense. Women should have equal opportunities to whatever society has to offer, be it education, jobs, and leadership. A women can lead a business and should be paid the same as a man. A woman can be president (obviously not Hillary Clinton, but I'm all in for Nikki Haley in 2020). The issue is when this is applied to marriage and family. A marriage is just two people (well, at least for now). Naturally there will be strife among the vision, goals, and future of that union. That's a normal experience thanks to the fall. Complementarianism says there are distinct roles within that marriage for a man and for a woman. One role isn't better than the other, and if one member does not live up to his or her responsibilities, the other will suffer, as will the marriage itself. Two people who agree on complementarianism will have more peace in their marriage than those who are egalitarian. Why? Because egalitarianism demonstrates less care for the success of the union and more care for who has power in the union. Egalitarianism pits two people against each other, because their is no belief of complementary roles. If two people believe that they each have different abilities and talents, and want to be successful together, they will fulfill their roles out of love to the other. However, if those two believe they have the same roles, they will be in battle against each other to claim their preferred role.
This was something that I was thinking of the rest of yesterday and into this morning. In my head I outlined these thoughts to post here, and then while scrolling through Facebook, providentially, this video of Jackie Hill Perry and Rosaria Butterfield discussing the beauty of complementarian theology showed up:
Of course I'll be accused of saying "hey, look these women agree with it so I must be right!" That's an insult to Hill Perry and Butterfield. These are two intelligent, insightful, and Godly women. They are honest with struggles they have with complementarianism, but also honest about the goodness in it. Further, they do a better job than I can explaining the image of marriage in its relationship to Christ and the church. While my point above was more about the day-to-day benefits of complementing each other, these two point it back to Christ, which is far more important. I especially appreciate Hill Perry's comment on headship being about servant leadership.
What does it say to them when someone like Held Evans in unwilling to even acknowledge the damage egalitarianism has done to the church and society in general? All ideas have pros and cons. In this video, Hill Perry and Butterfield acknowledge the struggles with complementarianism. I know few who would argue that complementarianism has never been abused by men. Are egalitarians and radical feminists willing to acknowledge the failures of egalitarianism, even if they still believes the pros outweigh the cons? It doesn't seem like it.
Those of us who promote complementarianism need to admit that it has been abused. Not only that, if such abuse occurs within the church, we need to use church discipline on that man. We cannot deride uber feminists while turning a blind eye to the men that twist scripture into a power trip to control their wives. Christ did not submit himself on the cross to order the Church around. He submitted himself out of love to save the Church. Christ denied himself for the Church. Are the husbands in our church doing the same for their wives? If not, they are causing as much strife within marriage as any radical feminist ideology, if not more so. The failures of husbands to lead in Godly ways not only causes strife in and of itself, but encourages such radical feminism and egalitarianism as an attempted counter balance.
Still, perverting a good idea does not make that good idea a bad idea. The twisting of Truth into lies is not corrected with more lies. It's corrected by more Truth.
However, since Strachan comes to this from a complementarian worldview, there was indeed backlash. Even though the focus was on what sadly passes for manhood today, folks like Rachel Held Evan went a little crazy:
Not enough NOPE in the world for this, from @ostrachan. Misogyny is NOT women's fault. Racism is NOT POC's fault. https://t.co/a7a2Uf9ZAm— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) March 22, 2017
Suffice to say there is nothing in this article that blames women for misogyny or persons of color for racism. Of course, there was a need for Held Evans to oppose this, because it addressed issues of manhood from a background of complementarianism. And we can't have that. I foolishly attempted to point out that this article had nothing to do with blaming or diminishing women, but that unleashed numerous of Held Evans' followers. My words were twisted and I was accused of sexism, white privilege, and mansplaining. Yes, mansplaining, because I, a man, disagreed with a woman and explained my point of view..@ostrachan problem isn't that women have influence. problem is that some men hate them for it. Tackle the misogyny, not gender equality.— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) March 22, 2017
Anyway, I shouldn't have engaged on twitter because it's pointless. It did however get me thinking more about the whole complementarian-egalitarian debate. At street level, complementarianism speaks of a God who created man and woman differently, with different natural abilities and talents, and then instructed them to share together life in a way that complements each other's abilities and talents. Meanwhile, egalitarianism says it's wrong to think men and women have different natural abilities and talents that would lead to different roles, and instead they must be equals in all aspects of society and marriage.
At face value, egalitarianism makes sense. Women should have equal opportunities to whatever society has to offer, be it education, jobs, and leadership. A women can lead a business and should be paid the same as a man. A woman can be president (obviously not Hillary Clinton, but I'm all in for Nikki Haley in 2020). The issue is when this is applied to marriage and family. A marriage is just two people (well, at least for now). Naturally there will be strife among the vision, goals, and future of that union. That's a normal experience thanks to the fall. Complementarianism says there are distinct roles within that marriage for a man and for a woman. One role isn't better than the other, and if one member does not live up to his or her responsibilities, the other will suffer, as will the marriage itself. Two people who agree on complementarianism will have more peace in their marriage than those who are egalitarian. Why? Because egalitarianism demonstrates less care for the success of the union and more care for who has power in the union. Egalitarianism pits two people against each other, because their is no belief of complementary roles. If two people believe that they each have different abilities and talents, and want to be successful together, they will fulfill their roles out of love to the other. However, if those two believe they have the same roles, they will be in battle against each other to claim their preferred role.
This was something that I was thinking of the rest of yesterday and into this morning. In my head I outlined these thoughts to post here, and then while scrolling through Facebook, providentially, this video of Jackie Hill Perry and Rosaria Butterfield discussing the beauty of complementarian theology showed up:
Of course I'll be accused of saying "hey, look these women agree with it so I must be right!" That's an insult to Hill Perry and Butterfield. These are two intelligent, insightful, and Godly women. They are honest with struggles they have with complementarianism, but also honest about the goodness in it. Further, they do a better job than I can explaining the image of marriage in its relationship to Christ and the church. While my point above was more about the day-to-day benefits of complementing each other, these two point it back to Christ, which is far more important. I especially appreciate Hill Perry's comment on headship being about servant leadership.
What does it say to them when someone like Held Evans in unwilling to even acknowledge the damage egalitarianism has done to the church and society in general? All ideas have pros and cons. In this video, Hill Perry and Butterfield acknowledge the struggles with complementarianism. I know few who would argue that complementarianism has never been abused by men. Are egalitarians and radical feminists willing to acknowledge the failures of egalitarianism, even if they still believes the pros outweigh the cons? It doesn't seem like it.
Those of us who promote complementarianism need to admit that it has been abused. Not only that, if such abuse occurs within the church, we need to use church discipline on that man. We cannot deride uber feminists while turning a blind eye to the men that twist scripture into a power trip to control their wives. Christ did not submit himself on the cross to order the Church around. He submitted himself out of love to save the Church. Christ denied himself for the Church. Are the husbands in our church doing the same for their wives? If not, they are causing as much strife within marriage as any radical feminist ideology, if not more so. The failures of husbands to lead in Godly ways not only causes strife in and of itself, but encourages such radical feminism and egalitarianism as an attempted counter balance.
Still, perverting a good idea does not make that good idea a bad idea. The twisting of Truth into lies is not corrected with more lies. It's corrected by more Truth.
Comments
Post a Comment