THE CASE FOR COMPLEMENTARIANISM: TAKE 2!
IN THE WORDS OF PINK
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again!
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned . . . or like a fellow complementarian disappointed in the length and quality of your arguments. If any of you egalitarians out there read my article from this morning ("The Case for Complementarianism") and want to flay me for it, tuck your whip back into your belt. The task has already been done for you.
Several Advent Christians who agree with my position have already reached out to me to express concerns about my presentation of the complementarian case. Their concerns were as follows:
You didn’t rebut Catherine’s arguments.
You were too snarky.
You were much too short and insufficiently exegetical.
Allow me to address each of these objections in turn, as I regard 1.5 of them as totally legitimate, and 1.5 of as totally bogus (though I will accept the blame for all 3, because I did not explain my goal at the beginning of the initial article). First, the bogus objection.
FIRST OBJECTION
1. You didn’t rebut Catherine’s arguments.
That is correct. It was also purposeful. The two articles that Catherine wrote this week did not address a single complementarian argument. I do not say this as a criticism. Allow me to pull back the curtain and explain our private agreement- we agreed to make our positive cases before the public dialogue, and then to present our rebuttals afterward. Let me assure my fellow complementarians that I have MUCH to say about Catherine’s argument. While it was excellently researched and written, I have a great many objections. However, I did not present any of those objections in my initial article, out of respect for our agreement. Remember, fellow C’s (I can’t stand to write the whole word any more), that this is a long-form discussion. Even if you don’t like my initial presentation, there’s plenty more coming down the river. So far, I have at least 15 pages of rebuttal. I have not yet rebutted Catherine’s arguments publicly. But I will in due time.
With one objection out of the way, let me now address the completely legitimate one.
SECOND OBJECTION
2. You were too snarky.
On this count, I plead guilty. I give my word that in the upcoming podcast and in the articles to follow, I will choose a more charitable approach. For what it’s worth, Catherine read my article and made no complaints about my tone. But she will not be the only egalitarian to read it, so to any others who may have taken offense at my snark, I apologize. It does not serve either camp, and it does not belong in this sort of discussion.
There, that wasn’t so hard. Now for the doozy.
THIRD OBJECTION
3. You were much too short and insufficiently exegetical.
I will have to take this one in sections, because I regard it as a valid criticism, but I have (at least in my mind) good reasons for the approach I have taken. First, let me acknowledge the criticism’s validity.
What I wrote this morning does not even approach what could be considered a thorough presentation of Biblical complementarianism. I mostly just laid out what I regard as the primary proof texts, reiterated the plain reading of them, and then dared my egalitarian opponents to offer another interpretation. Furthermore, I said close to nothing (with the exception of my brief stint in Genesis) about the undergirding of complementarianism in the church, which is the complementarian design of man and woman, particularly in the institution of marriage. Let me assure my critics that I am well aware of the vast array of Biblical arguments which I left out. The great majority of complementarian material is noticeably absent from my article. I admit that I excluded it.
Now, allow me to explain (for a second time, as it has become clear that my first attempt at an explanation was quite poor) why I did so.
MY FIRST REASON
1. I do not see this dialogue as an argument about C vs. E, per se. It seems to me to be far more narrow. As I mentioned earlier, I have had much conversation with Catherine behind the scenes, and we have agreed that this first dialogue is to be focused on the question of whether or not women can be pastors. Because our focus is so narrow, I have chosen to center my arguments around that singular question. Consequently, I want my debate with Catherine to be limited to what I view as the strongest and clearest Biblical texts in favor of my position. This is why Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, 1 Peter 3, etc. are noticeably absent from my argument, despite the fact that they are excellent proof texts for the wider complementarian position.
MY SECOND REASON
2. For the purposes of this discussion, I have little interest in debating the subterranean theological structure of complementarianism. For example, Romans 5 discusses the headship of Adam over his descendants. It presents Christ as the new and better Adam, establishing that in order to overthrow the age of sin and death Jesus must, by his atoning sacrifice, break the curse inherited to us from Adam. It is a powerful passage in favor of male headship. But it does nothing for this particular argument (I can already hear my fellow C’s protesting, but I urge them to read just one more point).
MY THIRD REASON
3. Given the narrow purview of this discussion, my positive case is extremely simple. Allow me to restate it below, and let me be clear- I do not word it this way to be dismissive, shallow, or snarky. I genuinely view this as the crux of the argument.
WHY CAN’T WOMEN BE PASTORS? BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!
From my perspective, the onus of this debate is on my opponent, because a plain reading of the key complementarian texts when it comes to eldership, especially 1 Timothy 2:12, begins this discussion with the advantage firmly on my side of the disagreement.
Here, I will admit that I could have offered a bit more meat on my bare-bones skeleton of an argument. I could have, for example, explained the Greek behind the phrase “exercise authority over a man,” which is something that Paul forbids women in the church to do. It comes from the compound Greek verb “authunteo”, defined as “to unilaterally take up arms, i.e. acting as an autocrat – literally, self-appointed acting without submission (Strong’s Greek Concordance, #831). I could then have contrasted that sort of language with 1 Peter 3:6, in which Sarah is commended for submitting to Abraham and calling him “Lord.”
There’s just one problem, 1 Peter 3 is about wives and husbands! Is it relevant to this discussion? Yes, I think so, but only if I take the time to present a much broader complementarian case before tackling the particular point of contention presently before us. Some of you may still be asking, “Then why not make that broader case?!” Simply put, it is out of respect for my opponent and our agreed terms.
MY FOURTH (AND FINAL) REASON
4. There is one other reason worth mentioning, and it requires me to voice criticism against Catherine’s argument (which I am very much trying not to do yet), so I will keep it brief- I see this debate as, at its heart, not so much about men and women as about exegetical philosophy. Catherine and I agree upon the doctrine of Inspiration. We agree that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, and the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. It is because of this agreement that we are able to have this dialogue at all. But we seem to disagree, quite strongly, on how to interpret and apply the words of the Bible to the church today, at least when it comes to this theological issue and the relevant passages. Assuming that I am correct about this (the public dialogue will either vindicate me or prove me wrong), shall I then give a treatise on exegetical methodology merely to state my complementarian position? I should think not.
With that said, I have already acknowledged that my initial argument was lacking, so I will attempt a very brief explanation of my approach to interpretation and application of New Testament epistles. I suspect Catherine and I will be discussing other kinds of Biblical writings as well, but for brevity’s sake I will disregard them for now.
I believe that everything within the canon of Scripture that was written to the 1st century Christian applies to the modern Christian. This does not mean that I require a purely literal/identical application, but rather that I require an application of SOME kind! I will use a rather controversial passage, 1 Corinthians 11, as an example. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul commands women to wear head coverings when they pray and prophesy. Temporarily, please suspend your musings on the meaning of “prophesy.” For simplicity’s sake, let’s just take it to mean when women are in the corporate worship service. There are 2 interpretations that I would be willing to hear, and 1 that I would protest.
A. Women today are supposed to wear head coverings in corporate worship.
Ok, great. Not sure if I totally agree, but I can understand how someone might reach that conclusion.
B. Women today are supposed to wear clothing that distinguishes them from men in corporate worship.
This tends to be the way that I lean on applying this passage (though, as I said, I’m open to the first interpretation, as well). It derives a principle from Paul’s command, and applies it to modern conventions. Even if I were in favor of head coverings, I would be able to understand and respect this kind of application.
C. 1 Corinthians 11 was written in a different time/place/culture/language, so it has no application whatsoever for Christian women today.
No. Full stop no. Plain old, simple, do not pass go, do not collect $200, no. “All Scripture is God-breathed and USEFUL” (1 Tim 3:16, and no, I don’t have to parse the Greek to explain what that means). I believe, wholeheartedly, that everything written in the New Testament has application for the Christian today, whether that application is directly literal or derivatively principal. If we are to take the doctrine of Inspiration seriously, the application for today can not be “nothing,” no matter how much contextual baggage may seem to obstruct our view of the passage.
LET’S WRAP THIS UP ALREADY!
Well, so much for keeping it short. Here’s the thing, folks. I don’t see this debate as a jousting match between two basically comparable positions. From where I’m standing, Catherine has a lot of explaining to do. I know what she and other egalitarians think a passage like 1 Timothy 2:12 does NOT mean. The question that she will have answer in just a couple weeks is, “Well then what DOES it mean?”
By narrowing the field of discussion and placing the onus of the debate on her, I do not think I am being shallow or dismissive. I am couching my side of this debate in language that I am convinced will effectively and efficiently take us to the true heart of our disagreement.
Should my fellow C’s remain averse to this approach, I encourage them to message me privately. I am the representative of our position in this particular interaction, but neither Catherine nor I are working alone. I welcome any constructive criticism that either side may have to offer.
But for now, I’m sticking to my guns.