Female Mutilation
Each year in 28 African countries two million girls undergo what is euphemistically called “female circumcision,” but what is really mutilation and excision of the female external genitalia and clitoris (clitorectomy). “One quarter of them die as a result.” [Daughers of Hope by Kay Marshall Strom and Michele Rickett, p. 12]
Page 13: “One of the greatest weapons in the arsenal of the woman’s great adversary has been the prevailing views of religious teachers. Throughout the great religions of the world, there persist teachings that the woman is subhuman, a tool of Satan by which men are led astray. Jewish rabbis and Christian teachers have not been immune to such twisting of truth. Historically they too have been far too quick to devalue God’s precious creation.”
Complementarianism is simply the latest Christian incarnation of this same devaluation of God’s precious creation.
Do you know if this is just as prevelant in the Christian community? I have a friend from Cameroon and now I am wondering if she was subjected to this too
I wouldn’t think so, but I haven’t heard/read anything about Christian participation. It is difficult to override the social pressure to do this since it is so integrated with coming-of-age celebrations, rituals and rites of passage. Apparently, the thinking is that this lessening of sexual desire keeps women from leaving husbands. In most of these societies women can’t survive without being in the context of husband and family, as they have no alternatives with the men refusing to marry uncut women.
How are you defining “Complementarianism” here? And how is it that you can *justly* compare “complementarianism” (?) to female mutilation, calling it the “same devaluation of God’s precious creation”?
Whether we use social mechanisms like rite of passage rituals or more sophisticated theologies to keep women in their place, it seems to me that puts women into a situation that is less than what God created them to be. God gives women spiritual gifts like teaching, preaching and leadership, and yet we (i.e., some human religious subcultures) restrict that, enforcing/heavily encouraging certain other family behaviors. God gives women a healthy sexual capability, yet we (i.e., some human societies) want to restrict that so as to forcefully bind them even tighter to their families. Either way, women are restricted because of their gender.
Let’s try this in reverse (for example):
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?
Right. But do you believe that? The Nazarenes, for whom I work, don’t, as they have held the egalitarian position for over 100 years, a good 50 years before any American political activity in the 1960’s.
I don’t think it’s fair to lump Radical Feminism with Egalitarianism (that is, Biblical Feminism) without some serious qualification. And I’m sure Egalitarians would appreciate that. I have read Egalitarian literature complaining of this very thing. I’m sure you have too (if not made the same complaint yourself). Both have different goals and both define themselves differently.
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.
You’re right, it was designed for heat. We’re usually much more nuanced here than that. Put it in the category of “Aren’t there any complementarians out there reading my stuff?” Thanks, Jorge, for speaking up.
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?
As a woman, I’m (obviously) very concerned about issues like female mutilation, but as a complementarian, I was hard put not to lose the entire message in being pretty offended by the last line. As you said, it was meant to create heat and see if anyone was reading, but the two are pretty wildly different. I suppose defining “complementarianism” would help, b/c for all I know we are referring to entirely different experiences. As I see it, when it works, complementarianism is about both sides dying to self and supporting the other, and as such I am hard pressed to see a more biblical model! My experience has been that I have been put into far more leadership roles in a complementarian church than anywhere else — the pastor saw his role as “growing up” other leaders, and did whatever it would take. It can work and it can be biblical, just as I’ve seen egalitarianism not work and be very unbiblical; both sides are made up of humans, therefore both sides are fallen! Please don’t compare us to female mutilation!! It takes a very important message and cheapens it into a theology debate.
Thanks for writing. I find your comments quite intriguing. The danger of nonintended consequences of our theologies is ever present, no matter how we set up our churches and which strands of theology we create or choose to go down. Complementarianism of course has its weaknesses, as my wife and I have experienced them first hand, but then egalitarianism has its weaknesses as well, or at least its own dangers of unintended consequences.
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.
Hi! I’ve been meaning to get back and follow up, but life went crazy for a bit…
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 think that many egalitarians would agree with much of what you’ve said. Many continue to serve in churches in which women are not viewed as egalitarians view them, but they serve their Christ honorably, quietly, and in full obedience to leadership that does them wrong.
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.
Eh?
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
Women in leadership? You’re not thinking big enough, my friend. This is about the full expression of Godhead abilities within men and women, of both genders living fully “in the vine” according to the gifts that He himself gives.
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?