My wife ...

Two wildly contrasting posts last night have got me thinking:

First, Jack a friend from her own blog and around here, has a guest blogger spot and came up with: The CBE Scroll » Thank you, but what else? It is a great piece that needs to be read in full.

Second, Adrian Warnock has been writing about a current trip to the US, his latest post includes plenty of praise for his wife see St Joseph, Jeff Gates and Micah Fries.

There is an interesting connection as both use Proverbs 31 to make entirely opposite points :-) 

• Adrian to continue to push his agenda for wives who exist only to support their husbands in "a submissive and honoring way". He uses a selective quote from Proverbs 31 which ignores all the independent and managing roles the wife has.
• Jack is making points about how women are introduced as "lovely" and uses Proverbs 31:30 to point out that "beauty is fleeting".

On the other hand the connection is broken and they stand in contrast as Jack writes

I’m sorry to say, I’m not sure that the Church is doing much better on this matter [ed: that women are invariably introduced with a reference to their beauty]. In my eighteen years as a Christian, I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard male pastors, speakers and missionaries reference their “beautiful/lovely/gorgeous” wives, often with nary a word as to what else it is that they love about their wives.

So Adrian gets going straight away in his first paragraph with his first mention of a wife:

who with his lovely wife Peggy

I am reminded of a post I wrote 3.5 years ago 42: Captivating Women. In that I wrote about my wife, Jane:

Instead I was (and still am) delighted to have fallen in love with a woman who is characterised by intelligence, creativity, organisation, humour and musical ability.

I don't think I was very fair at the time as there are many other qualities that characterise Jane and that together make the woman I love as my life long partner. 

However, and you knew this was coming, there is a but. Adrian writes:

Single men if you think you may have God’s hand on you make sure you marry such a godly woman who will help you achieve everything God has for you. Quite frankly, such a wife will be more important than anyone else in helping to shape you, all the time doing so in a submissive and honoring way. Beware, however, that as much as a good woman can make you, the wrong kind of woman can completely ruin you for any significant work for God. The women I have met here, including of course Jeff’s wife, have all impressed me with their commitment to the cause, their warmth, and their loving support for their husbands. Anyone who claims that the women in our churches are somehow not valued and not given room to serve their Lord has not spoken to some of the incredible women we have in our family of churches, fully caught up in God’s mission and playing very significant roles.

I get the feeling that the comment "Anyone who claims that the women in our churches are somehow not valued and not given room to serve their Lord" might be aimed at me (as well as every other egalitarian in the world). Great, bring it on.

Adrian's claim that it is only people who have not spoken to the incredible women in their family of churches that believe they are not valued and not given room to serve their Lord would  be far more convincing if

• I was not concerned that when he refers to "their Lord" he means their husband who in "a submissive and honoring way" these wives are helping to shape so that HE can achieve all that God has for him.
• Adrian could bring himself to actually mention some of these roles in which women are being valued and given room to serve their Lord (hopefully their eternal, loving Lord Jesus). In Adrian's post all we see women praised for is their submissiveness, their beauty, the way they complement their husbands, their commitment [ed: I don't deny that it must take a lot of commitment to give up on all that God created you to be and still calls you to be in order to be submissive to your husband], their loving support of their husbands etc
• We also saw something of the role of single women. Adrian says these submissive wives have roles in the Church (although as I have said he never mentions what the roles are) but there is never any mention of single women and their important roles.

Adrian, your post shows nothing of any progress at all in really honouring women, it shows so little of the spirit of Proverbs 31 where we see a powerful woman independently managing a large household, essentially a business enterprise and being praised for it. Sadly the post continues the subjugation of women that is a consistent sign of the complementarian viewpoint.

[Update] See also my posts 42: The forgotten victims of male headship and 42: Included or Injustice.

Comments

[Sally]

well said Dave!

[Ms. Jack Meyers]

Wow, what a coincidence. I actually wrote the CBE post about a week ago, but they didn't post it until yesterday.

Male headship advocates really don't get it. It's not that we question that they value the women in their lives; that's a "duh". It's that we question what they value women for. We get that they value women who are beautiful and willing to submit to male leadership. What about women who are intelligent, assertive, and self-reliant?

I have a friend here at TEDS, a fierce complementarian herself, who had a guy break up with her because he was intimidated by how intelligent she was. High intelligence was not a commodity he valued in a wife.

You'll also note that in Adrian's post, he describes women almost exclusively in terms of:

(1) their beauty
(2) how well they support the male leaders they're married to

Contrast that to his description of Pastor Micah Fries: "sharp, bright, self-deprecating, willing to speak of what he sees as his own denomination’s strengths and weaknesses, and eager to learn from others." No word about how good-looking these men are or how well they complement and serve their wives.

The contrast is really quite striking.

[Ms. Jack Meyers]

To sum it up, men are praised for their own strengths and talents, independent of anything else. Women are praised for their ability to accessorize the men.

Just another reason why "complementarianism" isn't.

[Dave]

Jack, Thanks for the value added comments :-)

[PamBG]

I get the feeling that the comment "Anyone who claims that the women in our churches are somehow not valued and not given room to serve their Lord" might be aimed at me (as well as every other egalitarian in the world).

This is the great divide.

There is simply no way possible to say "Both groups are equal but one group serves the other".

My African Methodist friends in London understood this. There was no way to say that all the ethnic groups ("tribes" and, yes, that is the word they use) are equal to each other but some should be subservient to others. That is seen as a sub-Christian message.

There is no way to say that black people and white people are equal but that black people should be subservient to white people.

I totally accept that men in complimentarian churches have good, loving, kind and pleasant intentions toward women in general and their wives in particular. I totally accept that many women are fulfilled in these churches.

Yet the view is simply wrong, sinful and sub-Christian. It is as sub-Christian as the message that 'Jews and Gentiles are equal, but God has reserved a better place in his Kingdom for the Jews'.

At the end of the day, there is no 'nice' way to say it.

And it's not about female striving. It's about God's love being offered equally to all people. Even murderers. Even Gentiles. Even paedophiles. Even women.

[Dave]

Thanks Pam, great point.

[PamBG]

Adrian, your post shows nothing of any progress at all in really honouring women

In my opinion, Adrian dishonours all his readers, male and female, by not tolerating two-way communication.

If it's not the intention to communicate "I've got a handle on the truth here, and I'll tell you what to think", it certainly looks like it. Our deeds speak louder than our words. So forgive me if I certainly don't believe protestations of equal regard for women when I'm not sure that there is equal regard there even for men who disagree.

[aby]

I wonder if Adrian's wife likes being his submissive helpmate as much he likes it.

I wonder if his wife felt free to tell people how she really felt about her marriage, what she would say.

[Dave]

Pam,

Yep agree. Conversation has never been a strong point. :-(

Aby,

Andree has left posts on Adrian's blog before. I don't think it is appropriate to jump to conclusions about her feelings.

Many women married to New Frontiers pastors claim to delight in male headship and even write books about the joys of being inferior.

More seriously I do wonder how to respond to women who say they like being submissive wives to male headship husbands. If that is their choice (recognising obvious question marks over whether it is a free choice) then how should we respect their position while denying that it is true to the gospel?

[Ms. Jack Meyers]

Never assume that the women who support male headship would speak out against it if only given a voice. Most (not all) of the women who do so have honestly bought into the system, for whatever reason. Women oppressing other women is hardly a new phenomenon in human history, either; some of the most outspoken anti-suffragists were women.

Furthermore, never assume that these women are ignorant, dull-witted, or dupes of patriarchy. The entirety of human history is filled with brilliant men and women who accepted and even advocated for racism, sexism, and slavery. That people of both genders still advocate for sexism today is hardly surprising.

Dave, when both the man and the woman wish to practice male headship of their own free will (assuming there are no other significant coercive factors at play), so long as they don't try to push their system on others, I say let 'em. I think the beauty of egalitarianism is that it has room for both sets of practices.

It's when misery tries to make company that I'll have something to say about it.

[Dave]

Jack,

"so long as they don't try to push their system on others, I say let 'em. I think the beauty of egalitarianism is that it has room for both sets of practices."

I agree, the problem is that the New Frontiers crowd and others they associate with (like mark Driscoll) are aggressive in trying to push this on everyone else.

Hence, I keep opening my big mouth :-)

[Andy]

Interesting post Dave!
When I refer to my fiance as "beautiful" and especially "lovely" I am not just describing her physical appearance, but also her character. When I say that she is lovely (to her to to someone else while she is present), she is not particularly offended.
However, I don't see her loveliness as being inherently linked to how well she serves and "accessorises" me, which I agree is a very poor attitude.

[mojo]

I would not want to submit to a minister who obviously has such severe issues as to make such incessant attacks against fellow brother in Christ Adrian Warnock and New Frontiers church movement. Your claims and assumptions are ludicrous and untrue (e.g. "write books about the joys of being inferior."). And the idea that New Frontiers churches are full of undertrodden women is really quite bizarre.

In order to diminish the embarrassment to yourself I suggest you actually visit such churches a few times, and maybe meeting these people you appear to despise, before making such erroneous judgments and leading others into error (as i see from rather personal comments added by others on this page).

[Ms. Jack Meyers]

I attended a NewFrontiers church in the states for 15 months, Dave. I now happily attend an Evangelical Covenant Church with a female senior pastor.

As far as I'm concerned, you just keep right on calling NF out.

[Blue, with a hint of amber]

I agree, the problem is that the New Frontiers crowd and others they associate with (like mark Driscoll) are aggressive in trying to push this on everyone else.

Hi Dave,

From your perspective in what way has newfrontiers tried to push this on everyone else? Who is the everyone else you refer to? How is it pushed?

That would be helpful for me to understand.

I don't think you really do "agree" with the sentiment of "let them". Or you would.

Finally, what / who is the "newfrontiers crowd"? That seems a bit of an odd description, not quite derogatory, but a strange use of the word. Who are the people that make up the "newfrontiers crowd" you refer to?

[Kristen Rosser]

Sure, women are valued in complementarianism-- if they do only what is considered valuable for women to do.

Sure, women are given room to serve-- it's just that the room is the kitchen or the laundry room.

"Room to serve" reminds me of the commercial about the little girl on the bike who is given "room to ride" that is approximately six feet by six feet. The point is that even a child can see when "room" doesn't really mean real freedom.

[transformingseminarian.blogspot.com]

I sometimes wonder if/how the gulf between complementarians and egalitarians can be bridged. When egalitarians say that complementarian churches are "full of subjugated women," it is certainly no surprise that complementarians protest. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable saying that the claim is entirely false. The suffering of most people who are subjugated in such settings is often unseen, either because of active blinders on the part of many complementarians, or because the suffering itself is seen as the result of a type of rebellion (Please understand, I don't claim this is true in ALL complementarian settings. Just that is does happen more than one would care to admit). There is a sense in which we truly do not even speak the same language.

It's not like this is a new problem, either. While I support (and participate in) efforts to reach true dialogue, I do sometimes despair as to whether that dialogue is truly possible.

[Dave]

Wow lots of comments. Sorry but wifi connection here is very flakey. So not easy to respond to any in particular.

[Dave]

Mojo,

Interesting that you start with an idea that is alien to my church tradition and to much of the New Testament of submitting to a minister.

Have you read Wendy Virgo's book?

If my views were so bizarre then it is strange how many emails I get thanking me for addressing this issue.

Bwahoa,

Wendy Virgo's book is a recent example of pushing this agenda (a book on women from Scriptures that ignores any women in authority such as Deborah is very one sided).

Maybe push is the wrong word as I agree that much of the it is subtle which is why language issues are so critical.

You are right I do struggle with what it means to let people be subjugated.

As for the newfrontiers crowd I guess I seem NFI as the most visible group in the UK with hangers on from other Churches but then add the groups that Adrian connects with in the US (such as those behind the ESV, Mars Hill, Sovereign Grace etc).

So I guess I was looking at complementarians from a UK perspective where NFI are at the forefront. Suggestions for a better term are welcome.

[Mad]

Dear Mojo,

As a women who has been in a Newfrontiers church for many years I agree with Dave and wait for the day that the churches attitude to women changes as do many people I know.

[former pastor's wife]

I was one of those women who loudly proclaimed that patriarchy was God's way, and that I was happy in my submissive role.

The thing is, I had no choice. Female submission was not presented as a real option....It was either "be on God's team" (and be a submissive female), or join up with Satan.

So I was a die-hard supporter of patriarchy, but only because I thought it was God's will and that I had no other alternative.

It is my belief that few, if any, women would actually CHOOSE complementarianism if they weren't taught that it was God's Way.

:(

Loving this conversation...

[Dave]

See also my post The forgotten victims of male headship.

Thanks Mad and fpw for the support.

re would women choose complementarianism?

It is worth remembering that egalitarian and equal does not mean that everyone is identical. Every couple can choose how they want to organise things. There is nothing wrong in an egalitarian marriage for the couple to agree quite traditional roles, it is about freedom to be yourselves as God created you - not about being forced into a mold that does not fit.

[PamBG]

I sometimes wonder if/how the gulf between complementarians and egalitarians can be bridged.

No, personally I don't think so.

I remember an older colleague who teaches in a theology college (aka "seminary") in the UK talking about a white South African theologian who came to the UK and gave a presentation on the biblical basis for Apartheid. Apparently, his UK colleagues were shocked to the core and he was shocked that they were shocked.

In my view, complimentarianism is like that.

Any tap-dancing about why some functions are too important to be allowed to some part of the population is tap-dancing. No matter who the portion of the population is.

I repeat. It's not about whether men or women feel fulfilled. And it's not about women's striving. It's about God's character.

[Dave]

Pam,

"It's about God's character."

You are so right. When we deny God's character people get hurt - should be no surprise there.

[Dave]

Pam,

and further on the issue of God's character. It should be no surprise that so many male headship supporters focus on a wrathful God.

If you get your model of God wrong then everything else will be wrong too - and people will be hurt.

[mojo]

dave
"Interesting that you start with an idea that is alien to my church tradition and to much of the New Testament of submitting to a minister."

I must admit I am somewhat shocked by your statement. How else can church leadership work since without authority they cannot lead? Following your leaders and submission to those in authority is all over the NT, where Paul commands those churches under his apostolic care and also discusses church discipline which could not exist without submission to authority.

The bible is very clear about it, and states it explicitly for those who need it spelling out:
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.

[Andy]

I remember an older colleague who teaches in a theology college (aka "seminary") in the UK talking about a white South African theologian who came to the UK and gave a presentation on the biblical basis for Apartheid. Apparently, his UK colleagues were shocked to the core and he was shocked that they were shocked.

In my view, complimentarianism is like that.

That is pretty shocking! Pretty stupid too - there clearly isn't a biblical basis for Apartheid.

Ephesians 5 does seem to support male headship though. Quite explicitly. Is it the case that it only applies to the ancient church in Ephesus, and not to us?

I honestly don't understand. Help me out!

[Andy]

html tags went a bit wrong there! ^ ^ ^
The first paragraph and following line are from PamBG, rest is me.

[Dave]

Hi Andy, Fixed the html.

Christians outside South Africa were far to unaware that there were arguments made for apartheid from scripture. Just as there were for slavery and for segregation in the US.

Ephesians 5 is only clear if you ignore verse 21, ignore the real impact of "as to the Lord" in verse 22, forget that we no longer accept 6:5-9, ignore all the evidence that Paul supported women as leaders of the Church, ignore the Biblical witness of Deborah, choose only to read the second creation story in Genesis, change the gender of Junia in Romans 16, ignore Galatians 3 and 5, ignore the way Jesus treated women, ...

[PamBG]

I honestly don't understand. Help me out!

I have no idea what the argument was. My colleague didn't tell me and I don't see it either. However, I do know that there were South African Christians making the argument.

My larger point is that there is enough material in the books of the bible - which are, after all, a very large library - that a person who is determined to read their point of view into the bible probably can achieve it for almost any point of view.

Dave gives a good example on male headship above.

[Dave]

mojo,

Sorry I was not ignoring you. We have a different understanding of how authority should work in Churches and what submission is appropriate.

I have concerns about structures that place a high level of authority in a flawed, sinful individual. When that authority cannot be challenged (for example by a woman) then it can be highly dangerous.

I do not believe that Scripture is enforcing a potentially dangerous authority on people that it ensures are vulnerable and powerless.

That is nothing like what we see in Jesus.

What you say about discipline is nonsense. Authority and discipline do not require powerless submission. Alternatives include Ephesians 5:21 style mutual submission, mutual accountability and empowerment - all things we see modelled by Jesus.

Male Headship is about macho power not biblical authority.

[Hannah]

These posts have been really interesting and I totally agree with what's been said about praise for women often being limited to 'isn't she attrctive?' and 'she delights in submission'. I have heard several women claim to 'delight in submission' actually, but from experience I know that plenty of women in complementarian churches have underlying issues with the position taken on gender, even preferring a completely different sey-up in their own marriages.

[Dave]

Hannah, thanks for that. A Church theology that actually encourages a secret dualistic faith journey can't be healthy (saying and believing one thing in Church and a different thing in the rest of your life). Christian faith is supposed to be seen in integrated, holistic lives.

Reminds me of my posts Is Tony Blair off his rocker? and Tony Blair vs John the Baptist

[Andy]

Hi Dave,
Thanks for your reply. Instead of responding here I've posted on my own blog.

[Peter Kirk]

Pam, do you really not know what the biblical arguments used to justify apartheid were? I think they were something to do with the curse on Canaan in Genesis 9:25 and the supposedly God-given distribution of lands in Acts 17:26. I was shocked once to hear an ethnic Russian pastor in a former Soviet republic use the latter to argue that the Russians had a God-given right to remain in control there - as if what God may have once given them he could not also take away.

[PamBG]

mojo:

Re your idea that submission is all over the New Testament, I'm just wondering what your image is of what was going on in the church then?

Because a lot of the letters seem to me to be addressed to utterly rebellious communities who were going totally off the rails. It's not surprising to me that Paul told the Galatians or the Corinthians to straighten up and fly right. Or that the author to the Hebrews told his readers the same thing.

What you seem to read as the kind of obedience that an army recruit gives to the staff-sargent seems to me to be the natural kind of thing that a pastor would say. As a pastor, I have actually had to stand up in front of a congregation after a service and tell them that truth mattered and that as Christians they must stop spreading malicious gossip about someone in the community. I have even had to call people to account for sexual misbehaviour - which wasn't so much a matter of willful rebellion as a good deal of ignorance about sexual propriety. I've had to show a people a vision and I've had to inspire people to follow it.

At no time did I behave as if leadership were a matter of me deciding what the congregation was going to do and expecting to say "Jump!" and expecting people to jump. Real leaders don't order people around. Jesus didn't order people around.

In my opinion, as someone who grew up in male headship before anyone thought up the softer term of 'complimentarianism', I think that there is a reaction against a society that increasingly doesn't know how to set boundaries. People don't seem to understand that it's possible both to set boundaries for behaviour and personality AND negotiate with others and give other people respect. In my opinion, this is demonstrated by the shibboleth 'Someone has to make the final decision and someone has to follow.' As if the 'someone' who has to make the final decision can't ever give up what they want for the sake of the other person.

Christian relationships are about mutual submission. If someone has the role of submission, and if they have no choice but to submit, then I don't think it's true submission anyway.

[Dave]

FYI Andy and I are continuing discussions at his blog.

Peter, Sounds weak and daft doesn't it. Something often true for arguments that we all now reject like slavery which were argued from Biblical texts. Hopefully soon people will see the Male Headship arguments in the same way as we now all see those arguments for slavery.

[Dave]

Pam,

Many thanks, great argument.

I love the bit at the end:

"Christian relationships are about mutual submission. If someone has the role of submission, and if they have no choice but to submit, then I don't think it's true submission anyway."

Amen

[Paula]

Re. the parallel between arguments in favor of slavery and those in favor of male supremacy, I'd be interested in feedback on what I wrote here a while back.

[Dave]

Paula,

Good stuff, you make good points. Thanks for sharing.

[aby]

"even write books about the joys of being inferior"

I keep forgetting how wonderful it is to be inferior!

[mojo]

Interesting that the immediate image people are jumping to at the sound of the word submission is a macho power wielding maniac. That wouldn't be a loving husband or godly leader. For that reason I don't see any point continuing the conversation.

However, to correct misconceptions about Mark Driscoll's views, please listen to http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/1-timothy/1-timothy-2-11-15-3-2
He discusses his church position at 50 minutes, but i suggest you start at the beginning.

[Dave]

Mojo,

If you search this blog for Mark Driscoll you will find examples of his teaching that exactly fits what I have described as wrong with Male Headship.

I absolutely do not claim that all men who require their wives to submit to them are macho power wielding maniacs. But the teaching does nothing to prevent exactly those sorts of men from demanding submissive wives.

[Koo]

Just another woman posting to say that having attended a NF church female disquiet with male headship is far from uncommon but usually only discussed in situations in which women really feel safe to speak freely (ie. Not when it's going to be reported back to said male superiors).

And yes, the constant reference to 'beautiful', 'lovely' and 'gorgeous' wives is nauseating and patronising.

Keep on keeping on Dave.

[Dave]

Koo,

Thanks for the support. I hope you have not found a place where you are welcomed, celebrated, encouraged, affirmed, ... in all the person God created you to be.