David Gushee - Keeping complementarians true to Scripture

Mercer used to be a fantastic school for ministry training. Now its a cesspool of liberalism as evidenced by this professors drivel. Dagg was once a professor there and his works are fantastic.

Thanks for the heads-up that Mercer is still lib.

RB

 

Can I just check on the meaning of a word I have never come across before? Does "complementarian" mean "someone who believes that God made us male and female to complement one another?

 

Gushee has shown himself not to be very distinguished as a professor when he can take "I do not permit" to mean "I do permit."

He raises four pretty inane questions:

This is not related to the topic. It is not an egalitarian/complementarian issue. It is totally irrelevant.

Of course. The Bible is pretty clear which Gushee ignores.

Of course, but again irrelevant. This is not an egalitarian/complementarian issue.

Why does it matter? This is an issue that goes to human pride. When people care more about their title than their function, it is a key sign that they are operating out of sinful pride. This question belies an understanding of ministry that it is about individuals. It isn't. It is about the body. Therefore, neither man nor woman should care whether or not their titles or treatment are the same. They should care that they die for the sake of Christ. This question is answered by reading Philippians 1 ... and 2 for that matter.

 

Indeed, a complimentarian is someone who holds that God designed men and women with roles defined by their gender. The key word being "roles" that they can play in society, in church, and in the family.

Complimentarianism is distinguished from the egalitarian view in which the idea of role is equated with equal access to most roles by either gender.

There is a wide array of viewpoints even within the two camps, but these are the basic defining characteristics

 

I didn't want to assume you were endorsing his opinons so I responded as if you were exposing them. To the points you brought out of his article:

1. The Scriptures are the determinate of role of women. Our own sense of "dignity" is not the driver.

2. We should be clear on the roles of men and women in the Church.

3. Scripture is clear enough about the roles of men and women. Both are encouraged to serve in the capacity God would have us.

4. No woman has Scriptural authority to occupy the role leadership that belong to men only. Women are not to teach men or have authority over them. If a woman was made an elder she would have the role of teaching and be in authority over the men of the church. THis is unbiblical.

It seems to me that the author is more driven by liberalism, feminism, and the gender equality rampant in liberalism than Scripture.

 

It is simple.
Women and Men are equal, but Women and Men are different.

And the sooner people rediscover this truth, the better off we'll be.

 

As a complimentarian, it is safer for me to respond since I don't disagree with your basic viewpoint. I would also generally agree with your summation paragraph.

Much of this article grows out of the fact that many complimentarians argue that since God has ordained certain roles, the greatest elevation of women occurs when they accept those roles. Gushee is saying that those words don't match the reality as in practice women are pushed to the side in complimentarian churches, not elevated as significant.

I admit, based on his last sentence, Gushee is indeed trying to undercut a complimentarian viewpoint - he is essentially saying that since our view inherently cannot do any of these things, it really does not advocate an elevation of women (as is often claimed) and is therefore not legitimate.

Therefore, I think you miss some of the point in your analysis. In his opening remarks he suggests that at least part of his motivation is to get complimentarians to be true to what they're saying, and not simply saying something to look more acceptable. His questions may be insincere and sarcastic, but they are not inane (empty, silly, or lacking sense)

Points 1, 3, and 4 occur because many complimentarians will say that they are elevating women, by letting them be who God made them to be as wives and mothers. Yet, the view can (does not have to) lead to men holding women in low regard (in view of how they're treated). The "I am more important because I am Pastor" perspective. Again, we say we are open to women in certain roles, yet we hardly ever encourage them to pursue those roles (I know some complimentarians would not say they are open to women in the roles he listed - but if they are, why are they not letting them do them). Pay and recognition matter in so far as the message we send (again, I generally agree with your summation, but if we claiming equality in being an Image-bearer and in allowing them to perform the roles, there needs to be equality in perspective).

Point 2 goes to the question of inconsistency in complimentarian circles, and could just as easily be turned around on egalitarians.

In short, the whole article is not so much about the properness of a view (though it goes there in tone) it is about how true to what is being said do the practitioners actually carry out what they are doing. In that light, it is helpful for self-evaluation.

 

You're absolutely correct! This would be the heart of a response to the issue, but his question is does our system (complimentarianism) really relate in practice, not just words, the idea that men and women are equal.

 

You are right, this is his presuppositional foundation. However, I think it is fair to at least ask 3 of the questions in light of what is portrayed in what we do, not simply in what we say.

 

I understand, but the opposite point could be made by asking "Do you elevate women to the Bible's status or do you require them to have authority over men and teach men in the church?" "Do you allow women to fulfill their God-given roles or are you an egalitarian"?

I don't think I missed his point at all. I agree with what you say about what he is saying. I think the questions are silly questions inasmuch as he implies (it appears to me) that complementarians and egalitarians are divided by these issues when in fact, they are not.

I don't fully agree, but I would point out that if men treat women poorly, it is not because they are complementarians, but because they are sinners. It is not inherent to complementarianism.

I don't find it that helpful, but perhaps that is because of our practice here.

I don't think any of these things are really about the issue he says they are. I think it is his attempt to imply that complementarians really don't treat women with dignity.

 

Fair enough. As I noted I think the last sentence of his remarks allow us to see where he is headed with the questions. Yes, he is suggestion a divide in how women are treated in the two groups and he is suggesting that though we complimentarians say that we hold women in high regard, we do little to demonstrate that fact. I would say, personally, given many of the people I have met who are in complimentarian churches that the invitation to self-evaluation is helpful. If you don't see any danger of this in those around you, yourself, or your church - God Bless You! (that's not sarcasm, I mean it).

I on the other hand believe that the interplay of our sin nature and components of the viewpoint play together so that I have to always self-evaluate and assess what I am doing so that I don't allow that nature to take me places that I don't need to go. And where I can be pro-active in considering some of these realities that he points out and responding accordingly, I will.

Whatever his motivation is, I can find some things in his evaluation that I can use.

My approach to debate is simple:
When I am arguing against a position, I attempt to let the proponents argue their case and not impose my words/thoughts/definitions on them.
When I am considering their criticism of me, I attempt to consider their statements as a help because they see things I miss.
I am not perfect at it, but that is where I am coming from in assessing his viewpoint.

 

What is your point?

Even if I were a professor at SWBTS, Paige Patterson is a complimentarian, as am I. I fail to see a conflict that your post implies.

 

This is an often used excuse to get around what Scripture teaches. A woman cannot "remain silent" while teaching under the authority of her husband. The fact that a great many people were discipled under a woman, or went into the ministry under a woman is not an excuse.

I am curious as to how one can "lean egal." except in the senior pastor role. That doesn't seem to be a position that is supportable either theologically or philosophically.

 

My response was not in connection with my possible job locations, the way it was worded sounded in context like you were saying that Dr. Patterson and my positions would be at odds and I was trying to ascertain in what way you saw a difference. I understand based on your comment that you were attempting humor, so I apologize if my response was a little terse.

As to my employment, living in Fort Worth and being a prof, there are a number of schools I could be teaching at (TCU has a Baptist studies division, DBU, TWU, Trinity, and of course SWBTS). I really prefer not to talk about the issue, as I am here as an individual, not a representative of any school.