Secret Women's Business

Once upon a time, I was involved in the Monash University branch of AFES/Intervarsity called “The Evangelical Union”. This was the early 1980s, and young men and women alike were leading everything. The term Complementarian wasn't yet a twinkle in Wayne Grudem's eye.* In this period, egalitarian theologians were arguing that men and women were designed to complement one another; that we needed both women and men in leadership. In society more broadly, the ideal of a gender hierarchy was being profoundly challenged. The idea was normalised that women should have equal legal and workplace rights to men - in theory if not in practice. By the late 1980s, Christian conservatives who believed in a gender hierarchy found themselves with an image problem. They were becoming theologically marginalised, as well as out of step with society at large. It was time for a rebranding exercise. To quote Scot McKnight: 'Grudem tells us that he and John Piper,...

Dear Complementarian Friend, In my last post, I wrote from the perspective of a minister and church leader, concerned about the impact on the church of proclaiming certain views about women. For this one, I’d like to put on my theological hat. The whole term "Complementarian" has been around for 30 years, as a reaction to some evangelicals promoting equality for women in marriage and in the church. The counter-arguments (and the torrents of books and articles) began in earnest. It seems to me these Complementarian arguments are on a sliding scale of merit. Some appeal to biology (“men and women are biologically different, and reflect different roles... that doesn’t make them unequal”). Some appeal to proof texts (“wives, submit to your husbands”). Some appeal to biblical precedent (“the twelve apostles were all men”) (1) Some appeal to church tradition… and a mixture of all of this and more. I can discuss such things civilly, I hope. (2) But there is a Complementa...

Dear Complementarian Friends, I know you are sincere in your belief that God has ordained different roles for men and women. I know you are trying to obey God's revelation through scripture. I commend you for that. However, I think it would be wise if you kept a low profile on your views about the place of women. Please bear with me as I explain. Alarmingly, some of you are claiming in public spaces that Complementarianism is THE Christian view. Some have even been saying Egalitarians are in error, unbiblical, and sinful. However many Christian denominations... Pentecostals, Baptists, Churches of Christ, Salvation Army, most Anglican Dicoese in Australia, the Uniting Church and others… DO ordain women. Making comments about how Egalitarians are sinful, unfaithful, and unbiblical doesn't exactly help the cause of church unity. Do you really think it’s a salvation issue? Is it a question you ask at confirmation or Baptism? It’s one thing to have a strong view, it’s quit...

One human characteristic is to interpret what we read through the grid of our assumptions and world view. We interpret texts (including the bible) according to the norms of our culture, our family of origin, the style and level of education we have received, our own personality, and all manner of subtle and not-so-subtle socialisation experiences. We interpret what the church should be like through the grid of our personal experiences of church, often with greater passion and clarity than with anything the New Testament has to say about church. Anyone who has had a battle in their church over hymns versus choruses, where the communion table should sit, how long the service should run, a building program or a management problem, can testify that passions can run high over issues that have NOTHING to do with good theology or the bible, and everything to do with the expectations people have based on their prior experiences of church and family. This is perfectly normal and to be expecte...

I was involved in an online forum today discussing how women called to ministry feel about Complementarian theology. Surprise!!! They don't feel thrilled about it. Nor do they feel all warm and fuzzy about its proponents. I responded with a cautionary reflection: When Jesus first sent out the 12 disciples (Mark 6, Luke 9), he gave them an interesting instruction: shake the dust off your feet when you leave a town that won’t receive you or listen to you. It’s an odd kind of saying. I like to think of it in these terms… if you’re rejected, don’t let that stick to you. Move on to the place where you WILL be received… with hope and an open heart. It’s possible to take the views of Complementarians personally…. VERY personally. I think that’s usually unhelpful; I think it’s better to move on to a context where you ARE accepted, than to become angry and miserable over attitudes you’re unlikely to be able to change. Am I saying not to advocate for equality? Not at all! Attitude...

My recent online encounters with Complementarians (God bless them) have brought into sharp relief for me a number of inter-related issues: 1) On what kind of matters in a public space can we unambiguously claim: "this is what Christians believe"? 2) On "disputable matters" among Christians, how do we nuance our language in a public space? 3) What's the difference between a public space and a private space in the new online world? Can I ever give my own opinion on my (Friends only) Facebook page, despite holding a position within Churches of Christ? 4) How can we convey Christian charity and respect to those with whom we disagree, while still engaging in robust dialogue? And perhaps the most difficult question of all... 5) How do we do theology well? What does that look like? Perhaps for today question 5 will suffice. Anyone who believes in God is a working theologian of sorts, trying to make sense of who God is, how God works, and how God and I a...

I have been in a recent online battle with Complementarians, and as such, I'm consoling myself with some blogging therapy. I hope you'll indulge me. I've discovered some lame reasons to be Complementarian, and am reproducing these for your reading pleasure. PROOF TEXTS! The majority of the "in favour" arguments for Complementarian theology involved quoting single proof texts; eg (I CORINTHIANS 14:37!). That proves it!!! Sometimes the proof texts were quoted in CAPS LOCK! BECAUSE THAT SHOWS HOW IMPORTANT THIS ONE VERSE IS!!! And because the art of hermeneutics, and analysing 1st Century Koine Greek, and taking in the grand sweep of Scripture... indeed, the art of Christian theological reflection... is hard work. It's so much easier solidify an existing prejudice around a single verse. END OF DISCUSSION!!! But this not the only lame reason to be Complementarian. Oh no... there are other reasons: LONGEVITY! Yes, there is NO need to engage with the...

I usually inhabit a world where men and women are equal: I never feel like I have to fight to be heard. However, I participated in a a strange online discussion recently about "male headship". There were many online (mostly male) participants who believed men are called to be leaders in marriage, and that the role of wives is to submit. Many did not believe that women can lead churches (or in some cases, say anything in churches) because of "male headship". I noticed something interesting. It seemed whenever a man voiced strong opinions, even in CAPS LOCK, other men would engage with his line of argument. However when a woman expressed a strong opinion, her arguments were often ignored, but veiled comments appeared about her "tone". It's as if the passive-aggressive crowd decided it was time to declare women "bitter", "negative", "defensive" and "hostile" if they disagreed with dominant male opinion. And ...

I've gotten embroiled in discussions with Complementarians again. They are nice people. Most of them, anyway. But I have a problem with the whole idea of of "male headship". Actually, I think it's a theological house of cards that comes tumbling down under a bit of scrutiny. So let's look at the most-quoted passage about this in the context of marriage: Ephesians 5: 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or an...

I might have harped on about this topic once or twice or a few zillion times but... it's nice someone else is noting the "heavy hitters" theologically who support women in ministry. You can read more here :

I have hardwired in me somewhere the idea that all truth is God's truth, and if we encounter serious problems in the "rest of life" with a theological idea, perhaps it's time to reexamine our bibles afresh. For example... let's think about those who've made it a tenet of faith that the early chapters of Genesis must be read literally, and that the earth must be around 6000 years old. Upon engaging with considerable evidence from cosmology, geology, biology, radio dating etc. that the earth is much older than this, should one not consider whether to interpret such texts in a more dynamic way? In the same way, if the idea of a gender hierarchy is God's truth, should it not have good fruit wherever it's put into practice, all other things being equal? How the Complementarian ideal of a gender hierarchy actually DOES play out in life says a lot about it. Relationship research reveals that "traditional" marriages are FAR less likely to be ...

I have reflected on a likely explanation for the curious instruction in I Corinthians 14 earlier on this blog , but have never seen it unpacked better than in this Youtube teaching by Johanthan Welton . This is 14 minutes well spent if you have the time.

Sometimes people who like things done a particular way (and isn't that all of us?) latch on to one verse in the bible. And for those who like to keep women out of church leadership, I Timothy 2:12 is one such verse. Tim Harris has critiqued Claire Smith's and Peter Bolt's critique of John Dickson's book "Hearing Her Voice" (complicated enough for you yet?) here , and I thought his perspectives on this verse are worth repeating. (One doesn't need to all this background to appreciate the reflections here!) To quote Bolt: "It is a common strategy to suggest that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not clear. However, the only possible element that is unclear is the presence of the word authenteō, since it does not appear elsewhere in the Bible—even though, thankfully, it occurs frequently enough outside the Bible to remove any real doubt as to its meaning (‘to have authority’). In this verse, Paul prohibits a woman from teaching or exercising authority over a man, ...

Any followers of this blog would be aware by now I believe Complementarian theology is poor theology... and indeed, poor logic. I have just been reading this paper by Rich Nathan, and thought I'd steal one of the sections of his long and thoughtful article on the subject. I quote: "Virtually every book by complementarian authors that I’ve read sets up some sort of subjective grid that meets the comfort level of the author. Just read James Hurley or Grudem & Piper and try to apply their grids. It would take a massive computer program to do so. In the meantime, women are wounded in conscience by constantly wondering if they are violating God’s will by taking on a certain role. "To apply these criteria would take the form of creating an entirely new Talmud, deciding that it would not be okay for a woman to teach in a Bible study when her husband is present, but okay if her husband is not present. Or to use a real example from Grudem and Piper, it is okay for a wom...

Complementarian teaching in my view is such poor theology, it is quite frankly mock-worthy. Not that people who hold to such views are bad or stupid people. For many it is an issue which attaches itself to the issue of the authority of the bible, indeed, of the validity of their faith. The fact they have chosen such a bizarre issue as a test of orthodoxy is a topic worthy of another blog post altogether. My point is that this is an issue that has strong emotional attachments for some, therefore it is actually difficult for such people to genuinely look afresh at what the bible has to say on this topic. Let’s give out generous grace to the people who feel this way. No doubt all of us have massive blind spots on some topic or other. But the ideas themselves require no such grace, and Rachel Held Evans has written a cracker of a satire on her excellent blog. I have reposted a section of this article for your reading pleasure, the fine tradition of Complementarian mockery displayed her...

The nature of God is probably the most important theological question of all. The New Testament comes up with a truly stunning answer to this most profound spiritual question: God is like Jesus. Jesus Christ claimed "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (God) (John 14:9). Jesus best friend on earth ("the disciple Jesus loved") walked and talked and ate and drank and spoke with and listened to Jesus constantly for three years. When reflecting on what God expressed in Jesus Christ looks like, he wrote a simple and profound phrase: "God IS love". (I John 4:16) God IS love. God is like the perfect parent. God is like the father in the prodigal passage, straining his eyes looking out for the longed-for homecoming of his son. God is the one who pours out abundant and amazing grace through Jesus Christ. I have just read a most thought-provoking blog post from the wonderful Rachel Held-Evans. She is absolutely right about this: while Christians might...