All Comments for: Wounds of a Friend: Complementarian | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > June

Christianity Today, June, 2008 |

Wounds of a Friend: Complementarian

Complementarians need to recover a fully biblical view of women — and of handling theological disagreement.

John Koessler | posted 6/25/2008 09:02AM

Counterpoint: We egalitarians should rely more on careful exegesis and less on political ideologies.

I am a complementarian. I believe the Bible teaches that God created men and women to serve different ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

K.	Posted: July 07, 2008 5:10 PM

The complementarian view is based on proof-texting: lifting verses out of context. It's simply bad Bible study. The egalitarian view puts the verses back into the context of the letter and the situation that Paul was writing about at that time. So, when people quote 1st Timothy saying that Paul says that women cannot not teach men but should learn in submission, they're missing the point of a very pro-female verse. At that time, Jewish women were not allowed to learn, so they were likely to be deceived. Yet, Paul says they must learn, which is great news for women given their culture at that time.

Judy Secor

Posted: July 01, 2008 9:34 PM


Steve Kindle hit the nail on the head...5 stars rating to you bro! js

Keith

Posted: June 29, 2008 1:12 AM

Koessler's article does make a reasonable point, but then there are always people who behave badly when making arguments for what is good or true. Maybe he might consider that since the tradition labeled Complementarianism is embattled, being counter to the now accepted cultural norm in the West and even in the churches, there might be some very strong feelings involved. I, for one, can't think of any good reason to call patriarchy evil when every page of the Bible drips with it. And one can't be a feminist or egalitarian without considering it so.

Helen

Posted: June 27, 2008 12:33 PM


The two comments above spell "complementarian" as "complimentarian." It makes me wonder if everyone in the debate is sure of the meaning of the word "complementary" as opposed to "complimentary." The word complementary describes something that completes or supplies a need/ lack in something else; the word complimentary describes a speech act as one that praises or admires something.

Fritz Siebuhr

Posted: June 27, 2008 10:42 AM


Jer 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth— A woman shall encompass a man." NKJ Jer 31:23 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "They shall again use this speech in the land of Judah and in its cities, when I bring back their captivity: 'The LORD bless you, O home of justice, and mountain of holiness!' NKJ

Dave Rader

Posted: June 26, 2008 4:50 PM

"Even more striking, why didn't Jesus commend Martha instead of Mary (Luke 10:42)? " Not just commend -- Martha called the question directly (end of verse 40): "... Tell her to help me!" (NIV) and the Lord's answer: "...Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." Two other direct examples: The Samaritan woman at the well (John 4). Jesus declares his identity to her and, v39, "Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony." And, in each of the Easter stories, the women discover the empty tomb, encounter the risen Lord and testify to the others -- testifying to the men who rush out later.

Francis H. Geis

Posted: June 26, 2008 12:18 PM

I appreciate the irenic tone of Mr. Koessler's article, and we do need to be more civil in our "discussions" on this issue. Nevetheless, his article does raise some questions in my mind as an egalitarian. If men and women are "together" the image of God, is a single male or female missionary, who never marries but is wholly devoted to Christ and the Great Commission, any less an "image bearer" than a married couple? And if the "female" perspective on the Bible, theology and Christian living is to be shared, then how can that be done when 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15 are regularly invoked as to prohibit that perspective from being aired publically, in any form? And while he says men and women are partners in fulfilling the cultural mandate, is it by mutual consensus or is it by the superior telling the inferior that who performs what role is determined? And these are only three of several questions that complementarians must address, I would say.

Wayne

Posted: June 26, 2008 6:58 AM

Then issue is often not the issue at all, as in this often heated and divisive debate over who can serve Christ in (and may I emphasize), HIS Church. Pharisaism is alive and well today also. Just be honest enough to check Romans 16 and you will discover that Paul commends both men and women who have served in ministry together with him, in all ways...we just need to get over ourselves and get on with reaching our world for Christ!

David

Posted: June 26, 2008 12:41 AM

The view of society is obviously egalitarian. But when we think about where our culture came from and where it is now, it sheds a little light on what that view is all about. Pure and simple, it's all about feminism. All the verses of Scripture can be read in light of either of the 2 views, but the views of most "thinking Christian women" (read "modern") are firmly in the camp that has been colored by our modern views. How could they not be? The couple dozen or so evangelical and reformed churches that I have spent time in certainly aren't identifying the feminism in their congregations. All people, women and men alike, are products of what they hear, not of what they don't hear. In my view, too many pastors are afraid to speak out. Puts a new cast on why Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus keep their women down, doesn't it? They're wrong, of course, for doing it by force, but if Christian men would spend more time romancing their ladies.... Isn't that mostly what they need? Love. Powerful.

Hubie Quiva Schlitz

Posted: June 25, 2008 6:53 PM

I really don't care for any label that the world has to offer me or my partner-to-be, and I care not for the philisophical arguments .... to me the gender "X" and gender "Y" issue comes down to respect and courtesy and the thought that : I may not be okay and you might not be okay, but that's okay. A great patriot, whom I cannot recall the name of, said : "If we do not hang together, we will surely hang seperately." We, both women and men, are fighting a rough battle every day of our lives ..... let us not forget who the real enemy is ..... "it" may be wearing a disguise. Just a couple mind plops from the other side of the noose. ;0) ~ H Q Schlitz ~

A.T.	Posted: June 25, 2008 5:41 PM

1) The gender debate/issue is not about gender--there is deep seated pathology on both sides that drives the exegesis. It's amazing how psychological wounds motivate us. As it is, its not a "hill to die on", but it has divided the army so to speak... 2) The debate is generating more heat than light, as Mr. Zacharias would say, and more strife than peace. 3) We are clearly bored. But persecution is on the way, and this nonsense won't matter one bit--not when you are running for your life!

Chris

Posted: June 25, 2008 5:19 PM

To tell you the truth, I think the whole debate is a bit inflated. If you consider yourself a complimentarian, there are plenty of churches you can attend that affirm that position. If you are egalitarian, you have at least as many. Is holding either view essential? No. Is either view a perfect (or even very good) expression of God's design for human relationships? Probably not. But both work well in certain contexts. So personally, I think we should stop trying to convince "the other side" in this issue and just get on with following our callings. Personally I'm probably more of a complimentarian. But life rarely can be as neatly defined as either "side" would have it.

Irene Voysey

Posted: June 25, 2008 5:08 PM

`Wounds of a Friend' is a title that exactly describes what more and more women are revealing to me in Australia as they tell of being demeaned and humiliated in `church', which we are constantly told is `family'. The blindness to the wounded women in our churches astonishes me. Our comfort is in the Gospels. Jesus always, always lifted women up. Paul said, `Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ.' (1 Cor.11:1) Read his letters through the lens of `the example of Christ' and Paul's focus on raising women up is crystal clear. The days of a man's legal headship are gone. New creations in Christ, we go side by side, taking the gospel of grace and love to a hurting world, our eyes on Him, not each other.

Patrick

Posted: June 25, 2008 4:22 PM

Koessler sells Complementarianism down the river in order to not offend the feminists and girly-men. Women are not called to lead--and 20th Century feminism has hijacked our culture. Men are supposed to be men--and women are supposed to be women. The Po-Mos can't decide anything, and in doing so capitulate to the Feminists carping for power. as the church becomes more feminized, it will continue to dwindle, because Church is women's stuff! As current pop-theologies go, from the emergents to Saddlebackers, fads will continue to decimate the Body of Christ. Godly Men will lead. Girly-men will cower and let the grrls take over. If Egalitarians want to gather unto themselves, please do! Let those who desire to follow Biblical practice and submit to Scriptural practice live in peace. The gender-benders will open the way for every other unmentionable practice, as Paul points out in his epistles.

Angelia

Posted: June 25, 2008 2:13 PM


Great article and great comments from Alan Paul. In so many ways, I feel complimentarian evangelicals are so tied up in the "policy" that they forget the importance of the "process."

Philip Williams

Posted: June 25, 2008 2:03 PM

What Koessler misses is the fact that the Apostolic Church functioned as a family. There is always plenty of fulfilling work for women to do in a spiritual as well as a natural family. Women's roles parallels that of the church as a whole - to be an example, to be a light. Putting the natural family first, by contrast, is pagan Roman. Ciceronian. Jesus clearly told us to seek our destiny with him rather than with our natural families. It seems that evangelicals have totally jettisoned Jesus' preaching of the church and the Kingdom of God. It has become "Me. My wife. Our son John. His wife. Us four. No more. Inevitably less until the rapture." Hasn't Koessler's institution contributed more to the abandonment of the church as the family of God than any ministry yet to appear?"

stan baldwin

Posted: June 25, 2008 1:38 PM


About the only useful thing in these articles is the call to civility. I think the jury is still out (and maybe alwasy will be) on exactly how to fine tune gender roles in the church and in society. But let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt.

Carson Daniel Lauffer

Posted: June 25, 2008 1:26 PM


Why reinvent the wheel. Read Pope John Paul II's seminal work, "The Theology of the Body". He's hit the nail squarely on the head.

Greg	Posted: June 25, 2008 12:50 PM

It would have been a more useful article if the author quoted actual published complementarians that illustrated the alleged problem. There is a ton of stuff published by complementarians; they publish a journal just on the subject. I think it still remains to be demonstrated that there is a problem in the teachings of complementarians. It is not a valid criticism of completarianism to say that there are people "in the pews" who latch on to the doctrines because they think they further their idea of what cultural roles should be. Even less is it a valid criticism to say there is something wrong because someone thinks they perceive a "tone" behind the teachings of complementarians.

Alan Paul

Posted: June 25, 2008 12:18 PM

Thanks for these articles. The money quote from both articles for me is: "When people talk about the role of women, I often hear a note of anger over my decision to have a career and be a mother," she said. "Yet I see no such concern about my male colleagues who are fathers of young children while working long hours. It seems that this strikes at the hearts of us men who consider it a duty to work long hours and ignore our kids in the name of providing for our families. Not to mention that the above quote brings our another fault with those of us who are complementarian: judgmentalism based upon the assumption that we know God's best for another person.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment