Complementarian falsehood

From the heart of the campaign for Male Headship (disguised as Complementarianism) we have this quote:

Just as the man, created directly by God is the image and glory of God, so the woman, created out of the man, has her glory through the man. (Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God)

I believe this is totally false and completely against the meaning of scripture. I want to hear those who support male headship add their own denouncements of this total rubbish. Scripture should not be manipulated in this way to support an argument (in fact to create an argument from dust).

Let us remind ourselves of Genesis 1 (yes it is still in the Bible even if complementarians consistantly ignore it – see 42: What Driscoll really said about God and hate):

So God created human beings in his own image,
       in the image of God he created them;
       male and female he created them.

Hard to reconcile this with Bruce Ware’s view (based entirely on a mis-reading of  English translations of Genesis 2) where adam is assumed to be male from the beginning. The Hebrew does not support that, adam was a human being and only became male and female when one side was removed. adam included both male and female in the beginning and when adam was lonely these two parts were separated (to be come one again when we have sex) so that the two genders could complement each other (in the normal English meaning of the word complement rather than the twisted way it is used by the "complementarians".

Sorry for the rant but this trash makes me mad (and late, oop’s got to dash, bye)

hat tip Suzanne McCarthy: Bruce Ware on the constitutional inequality of women via her post: Better Bibles Blog: Double Jeopardy.

5 thoughts on “Complementarian falsehood

  1. PamBG

    Just as the man, created directly by God is the image and glory of God, so the woman, created out of the man, has her glory through the man.
    This was precisely the teaching that I had growing up in a male-headship denomination.
    We were always taught that women were made in the image of God because we were made in the image of man (males). The suggestion was always that we were not directly made in God’s image.
    To be fair, I have heard some complimentarians rejecting this theory. But when you get to this stage, I don’t think you can call it ‘complimentarianism’ at all. It’s not even the double-speak of some people are created more equal than others. It’s pretty straight ‘men are ontologically superior’.

  2. Peter Kirk

    Dave, I agree with you. But I do think you have to explain 1 Corinthians 11:7 from which this is almost a quote, or else “come out” even further as rejecting this biblical teaching.

  3. Dave Warnock

    I agree with you.
    Note that this is the from the official website of what seems to be one of the most significant complementarian organisations and is written by one of their council members.
    Yes we do need to look at 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 BUT that does not mean we should accept a mis-translation and mis-interpretation of Genesis. When teaching claims to be on Genesis then it should be on what Genesis actually says.

  4. J. K. Gayle

    Just as the man, created directly by God is the image and glory of God, so the woman, created out of the man, has her glory through the man.
    I Corinthians aside, this works just fine for the first man and the first woman.
    But every man since has been created by God directly out of a woman. If we have to take literally that first woman coming out of (a rib or the side of) the first man, then let’s also take literally the fact that each male baby comes out of his mother.
    Our children joke too and say that Adam and Eve did NOT have belly buttons.
    The belly button, hence, is the sign of the reversal of male domination over females.

  5. Dave Warnock

    For a quick reaction to 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 see
    Here is a quote:
    Stackhouse uses key passages from both the Old and New Testaments to illustrate this pattern of “doubleness.” For example, in Leviticus 12:1–5, giving birth leaves a mother ceremonially unclean twice as long with a daughter as with a son. The patriarchal implication is clear. However, in Leviticus 12:6–7, once purification
    has been completed, the required sacrifice for the dedication of the child is identical whether the child is male or female. So, while there is a customary privilege given to the male, there is simultaneously
    a surprising affirmation of both male and female as equal. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 11:7–10, he feels Paul presents
    an interpretation of woman that contradicts Genesis 1:26–27, where both male and female are made in the image of God. However, in verses 11–12, Paul continues with a statement that affirms equality and lays the groundwork for egalitarianism.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>