Scott Ingersoll

So Kathryn, let me ask one more time — Are you willing to debate this on a scholarly level, with a discussion of Complimentarian material we agree to or not? Please answer this question as you take the last word. If you are not willing to answer the question, then please, don’t repeat yourself for the fourth time.

In stating the following:
I can understand what a man would get out of comp-ism: authority, rulership, the right to have the final say. The benefits for women aren’t so clear

You again show you don’t understand complimentarianism or the role of the husband in the home in this view. I urge you to talk to women who actually understand complimentarianism and embrace it. Unless you do so, you are only speaking out of what you don’t know. And this is even futher revealed in your attempt to correlate complimentarianism with Jim Crow laws, which is actually an insult to African-Americans who were subjected to such a tragedy. The two are incomparable to any legitimate observer except those who are not seeking to understand the position correctly. It’s easy to hurl insults at Complimentarians by claiming they are doing the same as racists, but it is more difficult to actually try to understand women like Elisabeth Elliot, who is a hero of all mission-minded Christians.

In fact if you want to interact with woman who are convinced of the Complimentarian position, go to the Girl Talk Blog, which is run by women like Carolyn Mahaney, wife of C.J. Mahaney, about whom we have previously spoken. I am sure those women would love to answer your questions and dialogue with you about why they believe that Complimentarianism is the most God-glorifying view of manhood and womanhood. They are articulate and likely willing to discuss with you their views, given that you don’t try to compare their husbands with racists.

Finally you are indeed overstating matters when you say that “there are too many strong parallels between the racial segregation to promote white authority and the complementarianism designed to promote male authority” and I again insist that you actually talk to men and women who are Complimentarians by conviction rather than making false charges like this and insulting not only your brothers and sisters in Christ, but African-Americans as well.

Kathryn, I wish you the best, and I don’t really think you mean to be hurtful when you compare Complimentarians with racists, but you really should tone down the rhetoric and spend time with some Complimentarians. Hopefully your perspective would change some. Again I ask you to read my entire post above and answer the questions. I would be willing to offer some other resources to you if you would be willing to read and discuss them with me over at my blog. Thanks and may God bless.

First, actually, I find that none of those passages you mention are incompatible with the complimentarian view of gender roles (BTW, did you actually read the article by Wayne Grudem on “head” or build your argument apart from it?). In fact, all those passages solidify complimentarianism as a legitimate Biblical doctrine. First, the creation story in chapter 2 (which I don’t believe to be a contradication of chapter 1 - maybe you do) clearly asserts that man was made first and woman was created to be a “helper fit for him.” Paul follows up on this comparison when he offers a theological argument for why he does not allow a woman to teach in 1 Timothy 1:9-15. In this passage he says, “12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing- if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

Here Paul clearly makes a theological argument, not a culturally one, as one might believe appropriate if this passage was meant only for one culture. And again it was based in a correct understanding of creation. Thus no contradication.

Regarding Jesus teaching that “the last shall be first”, this is in no opposition to the idea that the roles of men and women are different. Jesus here is not speaking of societal roles or of submission, but rather of willingness to serve others. In this way, those who, though they could sit in a position of power, willingly serve (in that culture that would have signaled a subservient person, which is why Peter so protested at Jesus’ washing of his feet), receive a greater reward. And again, this does not mean that husbands cannot serve their wives, and does not contradict the notion that men and women have distinct, God-given roles in the home. Thus, again no contradiction of those verses.

As for John 14:26 and John 15:26, which basically both say the same thing: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”, I have no clue where you are going with that, as well as your reference to “the priesthood of every believer” (which is actually the doctrine of “the priesthood of ALL believers” - there is a difference in meaning) and the quip, “Simply put, comp.-ism puts too many priests between women and God.” No where, ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE, will you find complimentarian scholars say that women have less of a relationship with God, or need any priest or go-between in their relationship with Christ. In the same way, while my pastor’s God-given role in the Church is to be the spiritual leader, I do not think that I need him in order to communicate with God (and he doesn’t think so either). Simply because complimentarians believe that the man’s role in the home is to be the spiritual leader does not mean (and again I challenge you to produce evidence to the contrary stated by a Complimentarian scholar) that he is any way superior in his relationship with Christ or his ability to intercede for his family or wife. Where you get that opinion I do not know, but certainly not from CBMW.com or any scholar in this discipline. That might well be a bias you should consider or a stumbling block to your understanding of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, as well as something keeping you from having an open mind on this issue. So, again no contradiction in those passages with complimentarianism or in establishing male headship in the home.

As far as Ephesians 5:21 is concerned, which reads, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ”, apparently Paul did not see it as contradictory to male headship since he follows verse 21 up with v. 22 and following which say:

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

I am actually glad you brought up this text because not only does mutual submission of believers to one another not contradict the idea of male headship, but apprently Paul believes it naturally flows into the idea of female submission to their husbands and the Church’s submission to Christ. And here we see a passage that actually contradicts with the idea of “head” meaning “source” since Paul uses the idea of submission in regards to husbands and wives and Christ and the Church. In the same way the Church is called to submit, so is the wife called to submit to her husband. And in the way that that Christ is called to give His life for the Church, so are husbands called to give their lives for their wives. That is why we call it complimentarianism, because the roles compliment, not contradict one another.

If one wanted to interject the idea of “head” meaning “source” it would completely undercut Paul’s theological argument and comparison of Christ and His role in regards to the Church and vice-versa.

Heading on over to 1 Peter 5:5, the apostle says, “Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’” First of all, this verse is not about mutual submission, but rather about younger people submitting to the leadership of elders. And this correlates to the home. In the Church, God has set up elders who are not necessarily more spiritual or more Christlike than those who are younger, but simply that is their role in the Church. The younger people are called to be submissive to them because in that way they are practicing humility. And of course we know that humility is a blessing of God and those who are humble are blest of God. Thus apparently we can conclude that submission in this context is not disgraceful or even at all “oppressive”, but rather it is shown to be a beautiful, Christ-like thing. Why then would you rob women of their God-given roles to be submissive in the home if it is indeed a blessing of God and something for which they will be eternally blest for having done? Seems that is more oppressive than complimentarianism.

And finally, as for 1 Cor. 11, I think you ought to go back and read that chapter again. No where does Paul endorse women teaching men in that chapter. In fact what we find it Paul saying the following:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

If anything what we see in this passage is that Paul is clearly noting again the theological argument from Creation that the man is the “head” of the “woman” and as such she should bear a symbol of authority on her head when she prophesies, yet the man does not need such a symbol. Why is this? Because of the natural order established by God whereby man was created first and woman was created as a helpmate. This is not meant to be demeaning, as Paul quickly shows by noting that men and women are not to be independent, but rather it is meant to glorify God by revealing His created order and illustrating the relationship of Christ and the Church through the marriage relationship. So again, no contradication in regards to the doctrine of male headship.

So, I think I have legitimately answered your critiques. Now, let me offer one of my own:

Your position clearly seems to be based on personal experience. Even as you rebut my comment about women complimentarians you show your unwillingness to see any legitimacy in the other side of the argument. You said, “Concerning Elisabeth Elliot, Dorothy Patterson and the other ladies mentioned, the fact that some women are comps., and participate and agree in their own oppression does not make it any less oppression.” Here you are making a logically fallacious argument by assuming your argument in order to rebut my question. My question was, “If complimentarianism is oppressive, why are strong women a part of it?” And your answer was essentially, “Just because strong women are a part of it doesn’t change the fact that it is oppressive.” You see, you never consider the possibility that it is not oppressive, you simply state that this is not evidence, which avoids the question and assumes the argument is true despite the evidence.

So my question to you is, “Are you really open to investigating this by talking to men and women who are scholars in this field and by observing relationships that accept complimentarianism as the Biblical position?” Futher, in light of the evidence I presented in rebuttal to your comments regarding male headship and Scriptural contradiction, “Are you willing to explore the possibility that Complimentarianism is the more Biblically accurate position?” If the answer to either question is “No”, then why? Aren’t you being close minded here and acting more like BDW definition of a fundamentalist than complimentarians who write scholarly articles and debate Egalitarians are? If the answer is “Yes” to either, would you be willing to read some publications and discuss them with me on my website? I would be more than willing to open up my blog for a full discussion of these issues if you would agree to open your mind and read some resources and discuss them with me. Please let me know. Thanks again for the cordial and informative discussion. I have greatly enjoyed it.