This is the fifth post in Mark Baddeley’s series on complementarianism and egalitarianism. (Read parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.)
Such separation between egalitarianism and complementarianism is unpleasant, and people are going to be genuinely hurt on all sides as it works itself out, but it is hardly ungodly by either side (apart from the ungodliness inherent in whichever position one thinks is in the wrong).
Women bishops who don’t have authority like any man bishop are still second class, and the problem of not treating women as fully equal still hasn’t been solved for the true-blue egalitarian. For the complementarian, women with authority over men is a culpable rejection of the authority of the word of God, and an endorsement of a wrong-headed vision of love, authority and equality that harms everyone caught up in it, male or female. The middle ground position that just wants everyone to get along because we all love Jesus is, on a question like this, blind to the stakes at play. Each side believes the other is either fundamentally denying the gospel, or starting a process that will finish with a fundamental denial of the gospel. And unity in the truth is difficult when the disagreement is at that level of order. It is of a similar kind of order as trying to get Protestants and Catholics to reunite, or getting racist Christians who don’t allow non-whites to be stake holders in their church with non-racist Christians who do to work together.
Finally, while one can find egalitarians in complementarian structures, and complementarians in egalitarian structures, the two positions cannot live together. A denomination or diocese or local church has to choose one or the other, or is in transition from one to the other. Both sides call good evil and evil good as far as the other side is concerned. Like abortion, or gay marriage, or whether or not one baptizes infants, the room for compromise is vanishingly small. You either do, or you do not; there is no ‘try’—and there’s no middle ground either. In the church’s public life it has to back one side or the other in this debate, or it is in transition from one side to the other. You cannot, as an institution, both restrict women and not restrict them from having authority over men. You have to choose. And so institutions—local churches, dioceses, parachurch organizations and denominations—are separating out as to whether they do or they do not.
For my money, while I hate any division between people who carry the name of Christ, I think this is a separation we need to have. Christ did not come to make peace, but to bring a sword, as much as I personally will take peace over the sword any time I can get away with it. I think if egalitarians think I am guilty of a kind of apartheid they probably should separate from me. I hate to think of what it would do to the moral credibility and conscience of someone to maintain unity with someone that considered that immoral. And I think that if complementarians like me see a link between being pro-women having authority in church and liberalism, we should start asking harder questions of people who are in favour of some kind of egalitarianism before allowing them into leadership roles in any context that we have responsibility over.
So, over the course of various posts next year, I intend to discuss this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism from a number of angles, exploring some of the points that I think complementarians tend to pass over: how both sides see the nature of authority and equality; the relationship of authority and love; the problems with an egalitarian vision for marriage and the nature of the ministerial role, and their understanding of who God is in Christ Jesus; and their view of how our salvation relates to the incarnation and God’s own nature. The issue is, in my view, enormously important, and we are in a time of changes. So it’s worth discussing the issue again, and to try to raise some issues that I think could do with being wrestled with afresh. But for the moment, we’ll start by looking at some of the pressures that are going to be on egalitarianism as it wins institutional power, and how that might present a teaching moment for some of its adherents.
It might worth alerting readers that, despite the gloomy prognostications here, Anglican evangelicals of both stripes in the UK are meeting together over scripture with serious intent – airing their differences and being honest.
Members of AWESOME (a women’s ministry group) and Reform (a strongly complementarian movement whose members sign the CBMW statement) have been hard at work on the texts and the issues.
Interesting stuff.
http://www.awesome.org.uk/?p=463
Hi Michael,
Welcome along, and thanks for the link.
I think, however, that it might actually reinforce the ‘gloomy prognostications’ of this dreary series that has now come to an end.
As I read what Reform and Awesome did, it is the kind of thing that I think is good to happen in and of itself. It’s similar to what I’m trying to do on Sola.
But those meetings made no impact on the political outcomes that this series has been reflecting upon for its gloomy prognostications. Most of them took place before the general synod that voted down the Archbishops’ amendment to have something more than a code of practice for women bishops. Complementarian and egalitarian evangelicals came together, had some serious discussions that weren’t just shooting at each other…and the gloomy results occurred nonetheless.
I think that actually strengthens my thesis. The evangelicals got together, had serious constructive discussions…and still took those steps that will result in conservative evangelicals leaving.
Now, what might be interesting and undercut the thesis, is what might happen in the next general synod for the Church of England when the legislation for women bishops returns to the synod.
Reform and the Anglo-Catholics have compared notes as to which candidates got elected and announced that they definitely have more than 1/3 of lay delegates who will vote against women bishops, and just a couple of votes short of 1/3 among the clergy. They only need 1/3 in any one house to stop women bishops cold – which gives them a basis for demanding the kind of amendment the synod rejected this year or no women bishops at all, and the whole legislation has to begin again from scratch.
That’s classic Westminster style hardball politics. The kind Fulcrum and its supporters practiced this year when they thwarted the will of more than 2/3 of the delegates at general synod as a whole because they had a bit more than 1/3 of the votes in one house. The complementarians might stay in the structure – but only by abandoning any attempt of working with egalitarians – just reducing it down to numbers and power and political deals.
What might go some way to undercutting the gloomy prognostications here is if Reform and/or the Anglo-Catholics are counting, in the votes they can depend on, egalitarian evangelicals who support women bishops but who would rather not have women bishops than lose their complementarian brothers and sisters.
That is, if, in the wake of Fulcrum sabotaging the amendment and the Archbishops cutting their loses and calling on everyone to just vote for women bishops without any provisions – there is a sizeable group of egalitarian evangelicals who stand with complementarian evangelicals in synod and say, “Women bishops only with provisions for our brothers and sisters with whom we disagree.”
My hunch is that Reform and the Anglo-Catholics aren’t counting many egalitarian evangelicals in their number crunching. The conversations won’t translate into votes in synod. But if they did…well then the English might indeed show us a way forward, if we think this is not an issue to divide over if it can be helped.
I was going to write ‘Baddleian jeremiads’… but I didn’t.
To be fair, it is far too soon to tell what good (political or otherwise) might come from these meetings. They are still ongoing.
Hey Mark. I appreciate your answers to my questions and challenges on part 4. As you continue the conversation I still feel there is something missing in perspective.
I mentioned Morling College, and you talked about them being inclusive etc. At the heart of all this, surely, is that we can choose to be inclusive or divisive no matter what our view on the issue is. But also this does not need to reflect how strongly we feel about it. I am strongly Egal. I am passionate about it, yet I am in a Comp denomination working with comps. I respect their decision to believe what they believe the Bible says. You write as though it is the subject that will divide us…but is it? History shows that we will allow just about anything to divide us.
If we believe it is a gospel issue, an issue of salvation, then yeah perhaps it should divide us – but I don’t believe this. I will go so far that I will say it is an issue that relates to how we view and understand the Gospel and see it worked out, but no two Presbyterians believe the same with regards to those things anyway!
I guess I am an optimist, but I do not believe it has to go the way you suggest. I’d apppreciate your thoughts.
Hi Michael,
Heh, love your mastery of words. ‘gloomy prognostications’ was excellent ‘English style’ polemics, but ‘Baddleian jeremiads’…that is poetry. I’m going to treasure that for a while. Thanks.
Well, if you thought that you wouldn’t have offered it as counter evidence for my thesis. You obviously thought it was a sign of something, even though it was still early days. I agree with you that the jury is out – hence my wordy response. In terms of the events of this year it strengthens the thesis, but I can see possibilities going into next year of how it might show other futures.
I think though, on further reflection, it shows just how difficult a non-splitting future might be. The webpage speaks of them meeting after years of not talking like this. To use your language: “meeting together over scripture with serious intent – airing their differences and being honest” and “have been hard at work on the texts and the issues”.
Now, I agree with you and Jennie Pakula http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_2/#5411 that that kind of approach is utterly necessary if you want genuine unity – just not talking about it out of fear that you can’t manage the differences, will get you in precisely the pickle that evangelicals in the CoE now face.
But just having a bunch of meetings between some leaders of some groups and some leaders of other groups is hardly sufficient. A lot more needs to be done to realise whatever is gained there as a substantial and enduring political solution.
The fact that just having the meetings is seen as a sign of hope – when they needed the issue of women bishops and complementarians saying, “This is it, we could be gone after this decision” to have those conversations, and they did them at the last minute…that in itself speaks volumes about how entrenched the sides are.
Now, this http://www.gazette.ireland.anglican.org/2010/051110/bishopwrightintereview051110.html has real potential. If N.T. Wright is indicating a real position that he’s willing to push other egalitarian evangelicals to adopt – especially Fulcrum – or if he’s a sign of a shift in egalitarian evangelical thinking, that could be a serious game changer – at least for the CoE, and hence possibly for the Anglican Communion to some degree.
Wright spoke strongly and movingly at the general synod in favour of some kind of compromise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUIgVHScayo
<em>”For the complementarian, women with authority over men is a culpable rejection of the authority of the word of God, and an endorsement of a wrong-headed vision of love, authority and equality that harms everyone caught up in it, male or female.”</i>
How IYO does a woman who speaks the truths of Scripture to a man harm him and harm women. How can preaching the truths of Scripture be wrong when spoken by a female but not wrong when spoken by a male?
Hi David,
likewise
Well, for me its not about being optimistic or not (although no-one ever accuses me of optimism). I don’t think this is something that we should be aiming to divide over.
But it seems to me that there’s room for all of us to talk over whether this is an issue where we should, before God, divide for conscience’s sake. It’s not necessarily a failure if we do – only if we do when we shouldn’t have. Sometimes Christians have gone along with things they shouldn’t have, sometimes they’ve divided when they shouldn’t have. We have to make the case, either way, and not assume.
Agreed, but for me it’s partly a question of what good you are choosing. It’s not just a choice of exclusive versus inclusive in the abstract. That choice involves (and sometimes is a reflection of) other ‘choices’ one is committed to.
My point with Moorling is that that approach to theological education offers certain goods and comes with a price tag. So does that at Moore.
If what you want out of a theological education is a chance to experience the rich variety that is termed ‘evangelical’ in the wild, you want a highly inclusivist college – have a Calvinist teaching doctrine of God, and an Arminian teaching the doctrine of salvation. Have a pragmatist teach church growth, a traditionalist teach pastoral care, a social justice activist teach community building, and a mystic teach on the spiritual life of the pastor. Have a comp teach Paul and an Egal teach Genesis. You get a taste of everything, but don’t sit with and be formed by anything in particular.
Moore is down the other end of the spectrum (and I’d expect the NSW presie College similar but different in its educational philosophy) – a basic confessional stance, within which there’s a chartered freedom for clergy, but which hangs together as a single theological framework and in which students are inculcated. You get much more monochrome input, but you also get to be shaped and put down roots under that approach that isn’t as easy in the other.
That has to be kept in mind with this issue of staying together. The most natural way of staying together institutionally is along the lines of what Jennie Pakula complained about: http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_2/#5411
Don’t talk, don’t advocate, don’t explore publicly, because it runs the risk of separating us.
And sticking together means both sides eschew trying to follow where their theology takes them in terms of practice – instead both sides try and preserve the status quo institutionally and leave the doors open for the other side.
That preserves unity. It’s a powerful statement of how Christ really does make us one in him.
But it makes it harder for both sides to address Arthur’s appeal http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_31/#5592 :
Christians really want light on how to deal with gender – male and female. And I think lots find the gender debate, as important as it is, stale and thin gruel for the soul. They want something that helps them navigate the current world in terms of the knowledge of God. And I don’t think we have that yet, not as it should be.
Trying to get there requires both sides to go further into their own theologies and engage constructively with each other, and to try putting it into practice and learning from the failed experiments.
That can only happen if we’re prepared to risk splitting in order to come to terms with gender in a post-feminist context. Not trying to split, but not seeing that as the one thing that must be avoided at all costs.
So I don’t think we need to divide over this, but I think that’s up for debate. And I’m also wary of the cost that I think is inherent in assuming that the big goal here is to avoid letting this issue divide us. We have a responsibility to teach “the whole counsel of God” as well.
I’m very glad you didn’t write that, Michael, because then I would have had to ask if the works so named pertain to the theory that things will turn out baddeley.
Hi Michael,
Yes, my apologies, I didn’t mean to imply that this was a post-synod thing.
What I meant was, if it is only Wright speaking up publicly, then that reflects well on him. It might even build some bridges for him that have been a little scorched with his attacks on Gafcon and conservative evangelicals generally over the last few years. But that’s all it is from a political point of view.
But if this a public sign of either:
a) Wright using his capital among moderate and open evangelicals to persuade them to embrace compromise on this issue.
b) a general seachange among egalitarian evangelicals
Then that is a potential political and structural game changer. And would be one of the ways in which I’ve argued in the other threads that the future I’m jeremiading
could be averted.
If it’s “only” Wright making a public stand in synond and in interviews then that reflects well on him, but is politically irrelevant. That is the kind of point I was trying to make.
Ahhh! It burns! It buuurns!!!
You’re a marked man, Andrew.
Oops, I was going to suggest that Michael and I try and make as many jokes as we could about you while you were asleep.
Fortunately my own name is completely immune to puns of any kind.
Hi Mark
Thanks for your earlier reply in the other post.
I’ll leave to one side the question of life in other climes—sunnier climes, that is. I’m studying at Ridley in the Gloomiest City On Earth. But exams are over and the sun is coming out…
I thought I’d ask something else, because, hey, I think the best questions to ask are the questions of ourselves.
We should start asking harder questions of people who are in favour of some kind of egalitarianism…
But as complementarians, what are we to do with multiple complementarianisms?
What do we do, for example, with committed complementarians from the Stott-Blomberg-Rosner end of the spectrum (including me) who believe that women can preach in church? Apparently there is indeed a dilemma as to whether such people can even call themselves complementarian, as Martin Pakula mentioned on Jean Williams’s post:
http://solapanel.org/article/equal_and_complementary_a_review/#5899
Pursuing a complementarian structure may well cut both ways. The ‘soft complementarians’ may not be activistic but the question remains. Complementarianism is not monolithic. Are we not in fact talking about ‘the coming divides?’
And, in any event, egalitarians and complementarians may not always look so different in practice. Is this really as simple as comp. vs. egal?
Trying to get there requires both sides to go further into their own theologies and engage constructively with each other, and to try putting it into practice and learning from the failed experiments.
Like you say, fear of splitting cannot be our driving force. Make that fear full stop!
And, like you say, we need to do the soul-searching in our own theologies.
But we need more than just demarcation.
I reckon the key is an irenic approach. It’s an approach that for example forms the basis of this wonderful book, which is the single most helpful model of this discussion that I’ve come across:
http://booko.com.au/books/isbn/9780310254379
In this regard, there are two particular things I want to see:
1. Are we in fact brothers and sisters in Christ? Let’s then be the first to extend the hand of friendship.
2. Do the stereotypes stick? As complementarians, let’s make ourselves known as passionate advocates of women.
”2. Do the stereotypes stick? As complementarians, let’s make ourselves known as passionate advocates of women.”
Arthur Davis,
In order to do that you’ll necessarily end up like the Stott-Blomber-Rosner end of the spectrum, allowing women to preach and teach in church. Anything else would simply be patronizing, of which a there is quite enough to go around. IMO such types are seeking the true meaning of complementarity.
Hi Teri
In order to do that you’ll necessarily end up like the Stott-Blomber-Rosner end of the spectrum
Well, you’d be surprised!
I’ve seen a few ‘harder’ complementarian churches in which women really are empowered to flourish (ie, much more than in some egalitarian churches!).
“I’ve seen a few ‘harder’ complementarian churches in which women really are empowered to flourish (ie, much more than in some egalitarian churches!).”
Depends upon what you mean by flourish. If you mean relegated to the kitchen, the nursery, and teaching children and women only, then for some that might be OK. But for those women called of God to teach His Word and gifted for it, the above would not be flourishing but some form of slow death.
Relegated to the..? Yeah nah, that’s not what I had in mind.
I’m thinking of God’s image-bearers, standing shoulder to shoulder in pursuing God’s rule, kind of like she’s pitching at here:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2010/11/rumblings_about_women_at_lausa.html
Hi Arthur,
You’re welcome. I’ve appreciated your contributions.
Try and thin the herd, so the One True Complementarianism reigns supreme. (That’s my position, of course.)
Tar and feathers? No, wait! Wrong Answer….Ah that’s right. Get them to take on my view, the One True Complementarianism.
You noticed that too? That was interesting.
I’ve kind of hinted at this issue in different ways in the comments and the posts, but was leaving it until later.
It matters a lot whether you think things like ‘authority is about what acts you can and can’t do’ or ‘authority is about what relationships you can and can’t be in’.
Those two are closely related, but an ‘act’ based complementarianism will have bigger problems with divergent practices.
Martin (and Grudem) have gestured at another factor. To what degree the main thing that interests you in this debate is the use of the Bible. For many complementarians, they speak as though they aren’t interested in a constructive theology (or theory) of gender, or authority, or equality, or love – none of the theological content of the debate is of interest to them in its own right. All that matters is the kind of hermeneutic involved. In the soundbite we’ve gotten from Martin Pakula and how he’s described Grudem’s position that’s kind of where they are (more info may provide more nuances).
Clearly, that’s not my take on things, and that’s partly because I don’t think this is a fight over the authority of the Bible first and foremost. It’s not like the inerrancy or infallibility fights where Scripture is the issue in its own right. It’s more like the Reformation. That was a fight over the gospel, that entailed an important fight over the word of God. Here the content of the debate really matters, but a view of Scripture is entailed by both postions and so it spreads out to that issue as well.
But, yeah, other complementarians will disagree and say, “No, it’s all about hermeneutics, stupid.” And that will probably lead some of them to put the boundaries somewhere else.
Yes and no. There was lots of diversity within the pro-Nicene camp. There was lots of diversity within the Protestant camp – and guys like Luther didn’t recognise guys like Zwingli as being on the same team. And in both debates there are even some funny outliers that are hard to put in any camp clearly. The tendency at the moment is to try and give a lot of weight to that diversity – “European Reformations”, not just “the Reformation”.
Whether that diversity ends up in multiple divides is hard to say. I think it is possible that the egals will divide up into the ‘pro-homosexual egal evangelicals’ (already beginning here in the UK in the Church of England, as far as I can see), and the ‘anti-homosexual egal evangelicals’. There’ll possibly be another division between those who are seeking a way of doing Church where no-one has authority over anyone else, and those who want some people to have authority in Church, but for gender not to be a factor.
It’s possible comps will have similar divisions if they decide that the practice is the key issue and so ‘women can preach’ is the dividing line. But if comps (or most comps) decide that a commitment to the perspicuity of Scripture, and to one of a range of possible views on the nature of authority, equality, gender and love, is the key issue then the division will be a lot less within complementarianism.
Hi Mark
Try and thin the herd, so the One True Complementarianism reigns supreme. (That’s my position, of course.)
:o)
Yes, well, anyway, I guess I’m jumping the gun. I’ll leave you to get on to Series 2!
Cheers
Hi Mark,
Sorry for the late comment, I just discovered your interesting series.
You do paint a pessimistic picture of whether unity is possible between both camps. Isn’t it, however, quite possible, if each side, although convinced that their reading is the correct reading, allows that it is possible read it the other way also (and still be faithful to scripture)? You can’t really be claiming that all egals are being wilfully disobedient?
I go to a church which has both comps and egals in it’s ranks, and occasionally women preach there too. Though it’s not an easy fit all the time, it’s a good way to go, and I believe, a gospel way to go.
I personally believe it’s only sinful for someone to sit and listen to a woman preach to a mixed audience, if you believe that the woman preaching is going against her conscience.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that, maybe your answer is already planned to be part of the rest of your series next year?
Cheers,
Donna