Monday, September 12, 2011

Complementarism and the Enigma of Tradition


Despite their commitment to sola scriptura, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) believes tradition is the supreme manifestation of the correctness of their complementarian theology which maintains that God gave the man authority over the woman.[1] Yet, with their beliefs, they deny that very tradition, for in the past thirty years modern hierarchical theologians have made five major changes in their theology:

1.      Genesis 3.16 is no longer seen as a commandment
2.      The man is no longer the only one created in the image of God
3.      The man is no longer superior, nor the woman inferior
4.      Submission is no longer equivalent to obedience
5.      Woman are no longer considered inherently more gullible

However, hierarchical theologians uphold still the following:

1.      Deborah, Miriam, Junia, and Phoebe did not hold the offices the Bible says they did
2.      “Help” (Genesis 2) signifies the woman was created to serve the man
3.      1 Timothy 3 (the office of bishop) is restricted to men
4.      “Head” in Ephesians 5 gives the man authority in marriage
5.      Sarah is said to have obeyed Abraham, her lord

What hierarchical theologians have given up are theological constructions that affirm the preeminence (superiority) and precedence (greater importance) of the man, and a twofold subjection, in which the woman is subjected to the man first at creation, and again after sin entered. The church began to teach the man’s precedence sometime between the second and the fourth centuries, but the twofold subjection as we know it, found in the Summa Theologica, was created by the scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. He wrote that the woman was created a misbegotten male, wherefore the wiser man had to by necessity rule. The second submission - Genesis 3.16 - was servile in nature, the kind in which a superior uses the inferior for his own benefit. Both concepts became part of our ecclesiastical tradition; Matthew Henry, for example, incorporated both into his theology:
Gen 2:21-25 
That Adam was first formed, then Eve (1 Tim 2:13), and she was made of the man, and for the man (1 Cor 11:8-9), all which are urged there as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness, of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands.

Gen 3:16
She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim 2:11-12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris-at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence.

1 Tim 2:9-15
They must be silent, submissive, and subject, and not usurp authority. The reason given is because Adam was first formed, then Eve out of him, to denote her subordination to him and dependence upon him; and that she was made for him, to be a help-meet for him. And as she was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression, and that is another reason.[2]

The importance of the concessions that hierarchical theologians have made is seen in that if Genesis 3.15 is a consequence of sin, the twofold subjection becomes an impossibility, and we must affirm that both the man and the woman were created in the image of God. If both the man and the woman are created in the image of God, the man cannot be superior. If men and women are equal, men cannot be more important. If men are not more important, women must submit (cooperate), but not obey. If women do not need to obey, they must be able to speak and voice their own opinions. If women are able to voice their own opinions, they must be equally competent, and not inherently more gullible.

But hierarchical theologians insist also that husbands have authority over their wives and that women cannot teach in the church, and they argue that this practice is rooted in the creation of humankind, particularly the woman’s creation from the man, who was created prior to her. Because of this belief, they must deny every woman officeholder in the Bible, and affirm that Sarah obeyed Abraham as her lord. But now a contradiction is created for if women must be silent, they cannot voice their opinions. If women cannot voice their opinions, obedience becomes necessary. If obedience is necessary, men must be wiser (for who would follow a fool?). If men are wiser, they must be more important. If men are more important, men and women cannot be equal. If men and women are not equal, they cannot both have been created in the image of God. If they weren’t both created in the image of God, it no longer matters what the Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 3 have to say, for the woman is an inferior creature - just as Thomas Aquinas wrote when he created his twofold subjection - and therefore by necessity ruled by the wiser man.

It is not possible to remove parts of an elaborate hierarchy and expect it to remain intact. Complementarian theologians must either re-affirm all of traditional theology – even the ancient link between Genesis 3.16 and 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 (“the law says”) – or abandon their belief in a divinely ordained hierarchy. They really have no other choice.


[1] “In 1987, a group of pastors and scholars assembled to address their concerns over the influence of feminism not only in our culture but also in evangelical churches. Because of the widespread compromise of biblical understanding of manhood and womanhood and its tragic effects on the home and the church, these men and women established The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. In opposition to the growing movement of feminist egalitarianism they articulated what is now known as the complementarian position which affirms that men and women are equal in the image of God, but maintain complementary differences in role and function. In the home, men lovingly are to lead their wives and family as women intelligently are to submit to the leadership of their husbands. In the church, while men and women share equally in the blessings of salvation, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.” (“About Us,” The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, http://www.cbmw.org/About-Us”[accessed June 29, 2009]).
[2] From Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

2 comments:

  1. As an egal, I am glad when comps change some of the stances, as the shifts are toward egalism, even if they do not see it that way.

    There are actually quite a few contradictions in their positions. To wit, the Bible is clear, but even comps cannot agree on what it says in the gender area. They should just admit that this area is not clear, but they do not want to do that.

    A husband is to practise sacrificial love/agape but somehow gets a trump card to override 1 Cor 13 which says that love/agape does not seeks its own way!

    They admit a husband cannot ask his wife to sin, but then restrict the meaning of sin to "what is clearly sin" rather than adopting Paul's insight that whatever is not of faith is sin. In other words, if a wife could not do an act in faith that her husband has made a final decision on, they side with the husband and so violate Paul's statement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don, I found exactly the same as you! I became an egalitarian because I couldn't reconcile 1 Cor 13 with Eph 5! How could a husband command his wife if love does not seek its own? Yes, indeed how can he?

    And yes, I agree with you that complementarians make the husband essentially the wife's god in that he decides for her what is sin and what is not. In my new book "Intelligent Submission & Other Ways of Feminine Wisdom" I question this approach, for if the wife is ultimately responsible before God for her own actions, a husband cannot come between her and God. This is why submission must be intelligent: a wife must think before she cooperates, lest she follow the path of evil, something wisdom forbids us to do.

    It would be nice if complementarians would admit to the many contradictions in their position, but I think you are right: they don't want to.

    ReplyDelete