When I said “same devaluation,” I did not mean to say, “equal devaluation” but the “same sort of devaluation.” In other words, both world views while intending well, produce devaluation in women’s lives, whether physical or spiritual. No, they’re not equal. Not at all.

Why did I word that last line as I did, as I said in comments above, to generate heat? This is the only post that I’ve made, to my knowledge, where that was my intent. Why there, and only there?

While some people become biblical egalitarians on the strengths of the biblical argument (and the biblical case for biblical equality IS extremely strong), I think most are probably baptized into it. I used to intellectually spar with my complementarian pastor about this issue, and it was all very interesting and logical and amusing and fun, but it wasn’t until he gave his view in front of my wife and I saw the horror in her eyes, that I really felt it. That I really got it.

Oh, yes, Westerners will get horrified at deformations of the body, especially if they make sex difficult or unpleasurable. And of course you are right that these procedures cause pain and suffering and physical death. I’m not minimizing that. It’s quite shocking. As CS Lewis has said, though, the sins against the flesh are not nearly as bad as are the sins against the spirit. So how much worse then, when attitudes or lies or teachings cause spiritual pain and suffering and death, and how much greater are those because of their spiritual nature. I know an awful lot of wounded egalitarians, but what about the thousands of modern Westerners who have turned away because of the appalling and evil nature of God that is presented to them?

No, this is not merely about muddled theology. Until complementarians can really get any sense of the downright horror of their view, the moral repulsion that reverberates throughout the soul of moderns who hear it, they don’t really get it. Until they feel the heat behind the arguments, they don’t get it. I was hoping this comparison might provide a way for them to begin to understand, or better yet, feel. Apparently it’s not working. They may need the same kind of baptism I got.

I’m glad you’re understanding the egalitarian arguments. But do you feel the goodness of them? Their true freedom in Christ nature and their release from the religious bondages of this world?

Sorry, but I agree with Jorge here. I fully believe in egalitarianism… actually, I’m not sure I do, and I came on here to find out, and you’re convincing me so far, so well done! But anyway, FGM is a practice whereby the female pudenda are condemned as evil, where physical pleasure in union is made impossible, where childbirth is made hugely more dangerous and the likelihood of passing on infictions such as HIV during childbirth is greatly increased. It’s an insult - I don’t mean to be melodramatic but it really is - to women who die and suffer terrible pain through FGM to say that having culturally based, Biblically muddled, wrong ideas about women in leadership is even in the same league, as such a heinous practice.

Sorry to get all up myself, as it were, but there it is.

This is my only complaint about your site, mind - otherwise I’m really enjoying it.

Best wishes (really!),

Nathan

The myopic focus on gender, as you call it, happens to some egalitarians upon becoming more aware of the issues, often at the point of being hurt. That radicalizing process is common and those who go through such pain deserve our love, care and understanding. Those with opposite beliefs and who are similarly focused on anti-egalitarian views probably also deserve the same kind of care and understanding.

Perhaps my definition of complementarianism is more to the middle of the spectrum than is sometimes used: I suppose I see the spectrum as ranging from fundamentalism (or hierarchicalism) to complementarianism to egalitarianism, with ranges for each position. Thus, while I support some form of headship, it is headship very influenced by the headship of Christ, who commanded that a person who would lead must become the servant of all. (I suppose sometimes I wonder what all the fuss is about leadership — no one is out there fighting to serve like Mother Teresa!)

I have had negative experiences of not being allowed to serve fully or use my gifting to its fullest in some complementarian/hierarchical churches, but have also had amazing experiences, and so don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water! I’ve also been very turned off by Christians who myopically focus on the issue of gender roles. In my experience, the world is NOT concerned with gender roles anymore at all the same way. The fact that the church is in so much turmoil over this only works to make us seem more irrelevant and outdated to the culture. If we fought instead to follow examples like Mother Teresa and the countless other “unknowns” (who I have a feeling will be far higher up in the heavenly ‘leadership scale’), perhaps we’ll suddenly show the world that this “Christianity thing” really has something to it in transforming individuals and the world…

I’m intrigued because your definition of complementarianism is very close to that of egalitarianism. It’s been my experience that complementarians tend to de-emphasize Eph 5:21, however. I do complement Wayne Grudem for wondering in his writings whether the egalitarian movement might be a positive corrective for the church to change some of its practices that stem from over-controlling males and the abuse they spread around, both familial and religious. There’s some survey evidence that there’s a pretty good chunk of evangelical families that espouse the headship jargon yet live like egalitarians. There’s also concern within the egalitarian ranks that their message is not reaching men as effectively as they’d like and that perhaps they should take their concerns more into account. Maybe the two sides of this issue are growing closer together. I sure hope so, but egalitarians continue to see little value and much harm in hierarchical approaches.

I’ve just been learning more about this practice that many cultures in Africa (and I think elsewhere, too) practice. What struck me was their attitude towards this practice — one of how beautiful a practice it was, how it was so highly desired by the young women themselves, raising their standing in the community, and how it protected and nurtured the family. Do you really see no parallels here?

Likewise, I don’t think lumping Complementarianism with “Female Mutilation” is fair at all. It is *not* the “*same* devaluation of God’s precious creation.” This is simply a careless statement intended to generate more heat than light.

Egalitarians want to be taken seriously and understood correctly - not caricatured and brushed aside. Complementarians want to be extended the same courtesy.

The concept of marriage and family is being severely attacked in our day. Radical feminism, which emerged in the late 1960s, seeks “to undermine the nuclear family of married father, mother, and children, which they label the ‘patriarchal family.’” They believe “Marriage and the family must be eliminated” (Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, ” The Heritage Foundation [June 16, 2003] Online).

Egalitarianism is simply the latest Christian incarnation of this same devaluation of God’s precious creation of the family.

See where I’m going with this?