I just published a
post that argued that 1 Peter 3:6 was adroitly skipped round by a
Complementarian scholar. In this post, I will show a series of fallacious
arguments and false disjunctions that feed the Complementarian position and
evince a politically-correct side to Complementarianism. Once again, for the sake of objectivity and
accountability- and because the article is short- I’ve included the
Complementarian’s comments. The writer is Jared C. Wilson, Director of Content
Strategy for Midwestern Seminary.[1]
Complementarianism is
not generally about authority/submission, as if
they exist in a moral vacuum. It is about what biblical
authority/submission look like. The passages
where complementarians find reference to the authority/submission dynamic in
marriage do not neglect to show us the nature of the authority.
Husbands, love your
wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might
sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 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. In the
same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his
wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and
cherishes it, just as Christ does the church… (Ephesians 5:25-29)
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and
likewise the
wife to her husband. For
the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.
Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife
does. (1 Corinthians 7:4)
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding
way,
showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are
heirs
with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be
hindered. (1
Peter 3:7)
Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
(Colossians
3:19)
This is what a complementarian man does.
A complementarian husband does not exercise his authority absent
of any authority over him. The Bible that grounds his authority describes his
responsibilities, so he submits to God's authority, and he is under the
authority of a local church. Contrary to caricature, the complementarian husband
who uses his views as a license to shut out his wife's counsel, to forsake her
cherishing and freedom, and to deny her flourishing and edification is not a
complementarian at all, but a selfish brute in need of sharp rebuke and church
discipline. And if the situation calls for it (physical abuse or any other
compromise of safety), legal justice.
No view of gender roles will protect us from sin, certainly. But
real complementarianism is not about "lone ranger" husbands deciding
according to their own whims what's good for their wives and families. It is
about husbands under God's authority and the authority of a local church
cherishing, honoring, and building up their families. Husbands are charged with
presenting their wives sanctified and spotless to Christ, not burdened and
beaten down by neglect and dishonor. A complementarian man's mission is his
wife's joy in Christ. In fact, Proverbs 12:4 and 1 Corinthians
11:7 imply that a wife haggard in spirit and squelched in soul is evidence of a
husband derelict of his duty, regardless of his views on gender roles. Any man
who treats his wife in a neglectful or abusive way is no complementarian; he is
a walking perversion of manhood in need of repentance.[2]
Here
are the fallacious arguments in order:
#1. “Complementarianism is not generally about
authority/submission, as if they exist in a moral vacuum. It is about what
biblical authority/submission look like.”
The
office and nature of authority is played down to concentrate on what authority
looks like. And, as I argued elsewhere, this is the Complementarian Achilees’
Heel.[3]
Complementarianism skirts by authority in itself to deal with actions only.
Yet, the Bible is most definitely concerned with authority in its nature and with
those who have an office or position of authority. How can one read Romans
9:19-21 and conclude that authority is, in itself, not a major issue in
Scripture? Systematic Theologians refer to the “authority of Scripture” as a
fundamental doctrine. We speak about the authority of elders without blinking
an eye. Christ is the Head of the church, in authority over it. Yet, when it
comes to marriage, the husband’s ‘office’ of headship and the nature of his
authority are given lip-service. How are we meant to know what is an act of
authority and what it looks like if we have no profound understanding of authority
in the first place? And do we not run the huge risk of letting the tail wag the
dog? If actions circumscribe authority, does this entail that authority cannot
be understood except in actions? What if these actions describe authority in a
very feminist-looking manner?
#2: “The
passages where complementarians find reference to the authority/submission
dynamic in marriage do not neglect to show us the nature of the authority.”
After
this statement, the writer lists a series of verses describing how the husband
acts. And therein lies the problem: the verses do not describe the nature of
authority; they describe how it acts or functions. The writer has conflated the
nature of authority with its function, but they are not the same thing. A
sergeant has authority over his soldiers and acts sacrificially; a different
sergeant has authority over his soldiers and acts cowardly. Which sergeant has
authority? One leader sets free prisoners; another kills just men. Which leader
has authority? Why did Jesus confirm that Pilate had authority over him to kill
him or set him free (John 19:10-11)? The existence of authority and its nature
is patently not determined by actions.
We must not confuse the purpose of
authority with its nature. Biblical authority of any sort is given for the
welfare and protection of God’s creation. It is quite another matter, however,
how that authority is used: does it achieve its goals or not? This is not a
trick. Think about it: are people in authority flawless? If a pastor,
unwittingly at the time, makes an error and is somewhat harsh on someone in the
congregation, do we refuse to acknowledge his authority because of what he did?
If a husband is harsh does he have authority over his wife? This is a very
important question and Complementarians must answer it. Plainly, as far as
Peter is concerned, a wife is due obedience to her husband even if he is harsh,
for then it is her Christian
responsibility to win him to Christ (1 Pet.3:1). A husband’s authority is not
dependent upon his actions.
#3. “A
complementarian husband does not exercise his authority absent of any authority
over him. The Bible that grounds his authority describes his responsibilities,
so he submits to God's authority, and he is under the authority of a local
church.”
It
is true that a Christian husband is under the authority of God and under the
authority of the church. Is the husband under the authority of ‘Caesar’? Of
course (Matt.22:21): husbands must submit to all authorities appointed by God.
But the church and society have authority over the husband only to the extent
given to them by God. The flip-side is this: the husband is head of his own
household and family. The church does not
have the final say in how a husband leads his home. That is, in his capacity as
head over his own household, the husband is not
under the authority of the church or society. As a citizen, the husband is
under society’s authority; and as a member of the body of Christ, the husband is
under the church’s authority. However, the husband has a sphere of authority
that belongs to him alone under God. If this were not so, then society would
determine the decisions of a household, or church would determine the decisions
of a household. This is a crucial and practical distinction when it comes to
what is, and what is not, permissible for a Christian husband to do or decide
in regard to leading his family. What if some elders disagree with the husband,
is he wrong? Do they have a right to enter into the business of his home? Only
to the extent that he is a member of the church or is violating God’s word. After
that they must step back. What if an eldership is weak and does not lead well?
Is the husband now beholden to that particular eldership? Are you telling me that you’ve never heard of a church where the
elders went too far and stuck their noses into a family’s business?
#4. “Contrary to caricature,
the complementarian husband who uses his views as a license to shut out his
wife's counsel, to forsake her cherishing and freedom, and to deny her
flourishing and edification is not a complementarian at all, but a selfish
brute in need of sharp rebuke and church discipline. And if the situation calls
for it (physical abuse or any other compromise of safety), legal justice.”
Where is this
husband that the Complementarians describe? Within today’s society or church?
I’d like to meet him, for he’s a rare creature! Which Christian husband aims to
deny to his wife the opportunity to flourish and to grow? But here’s a
scenario: what if a Christian wife is
a pain in the butt and is acting in a contrary manner? What if her counsel has
consistently been weak, foolish, and selfish? For example, what if her husband
is a merchant seaman and wishes to settle on land, but she counsels against
this because he is earning a lot of money? What if she claims that her husband
is a brute because he rejects her counsel? Do you think, Complementarian, that
these things don’t happen and that this is hypothetical? Think again! In any
authority structure there is a relationship between the one in authority and
the one under authority. Through mankind’s history, the one in authority has
had the right to reject the counsel of the one under authority. Should Jesus
have taken Peter’s darkened counsel not to die on the cross? Why did Jesus
refuse such counsel and not entertain it? Why did he close it down? Why did he
not seek Peter’s advice on the issue? What if the husband is saturated with the
wife’s counsel and has come to his decision? What would a group of elders do if
it had heard out the church and decided it didn’t agree? What does the boss of
a company do when those under him disagree but he’s heard enough and simply
will not listen anymore?
#5. “No view of gender roles
will protect us from sin, certainly. But real complementarianism is not about
"lone ranger" husbands deciding according to their own whims what's
good for their wives and families.”
And so the false
disjunction comes into its main complaint, namely, the husband acting
unilaterally. And, once more, the reader is ‘treated’ to hyperbole and
polarities.
The
Complementarian reading is so utterly impractical that it verges on the
ridiculous. Complementarians hate the thought of the husband acting
unilaterally; it is their greatest fear. Yet, they do not consider that in all
human structures of authority, those in authority make decisions unilaterally.
Does your eldership consult you on everything? How on earth can anyone in
authority operate unless he or she has the power to act unilaterally? Does the
President of the United States act unilaterally? Does a school principle act
unilaterally? Does the boss of a company act unilaterally? Why do huge
corporations hire CEOs at great expense? Surely it is to act with decisiveness,
even through use of unilateral decision-making. When Napoleon was on the
battlefield, did he stop to consult his generals each time he decided to make a
great move? Were all his major power-plays the result of interacting with this
generals, or did he create and enact some of them by himself, through his
generals? But forget about the person in authority. Let’s consider the person
under authority. Do we not- all of us- make decisions for ourselves every
single day? THIS IS UNILATERAL DECISION-MAKING IN ACTION! If a wife decides to
write to an editor complaining about a magazine article, has she sinned because
she has not consulted her husband?
Or, let’s look at this problem from
another angle. Would Complementarians say that a Christian husband has no right
to act unilaterally and get his family out of trouble? What if a husband
decides, all by himself, that he’s had enough and wants his family to leave an
area of high violence, danger, and drug abuse? Does he now have a right to act
on their behalf and deliver them without even consulting them?
And just how does authority work?
What does a husband do if his wife constantly disagrees with him? Can he act to
perform what he thinks is right? Or is he always bound to his wife’s objection?
Or is it a stalemate? Where’s his
authority? So, how does the Complementarian see these situations playing out?
And,
please, don’t say Christ gave up his authority- he did not! Why did the
apostles leave everything behind and immediately follow Christ without
consulting their wives? If unilateralism is such an evil, why did Christ
effectively ask them to commit sin? Christ’s
authority was not defined by his sacrificial life; his authority was
demonstrated in his sacrificial life. But it is crucial to understand that he
never stopped, for a moment, being in authority, and that he acted unilaterally
as the ‘husband’ of his wife, his church. Did he not go to the cross without
‘consulting’ his wife? Yes, he did…and more…he went in spite of his bride, the
church!
And
where is this husband who goes around acting always on his own whims? Again I
say, introduce me to him. And it is the position of Mr. Wilson that he does not
behave this way (how could he, for such members would be disciplined by the
church?). But one fly spoils the ointment! Has he NEVER acted whimsically? How
many times has he done so? But maybe he hasn’t, yet someone else (a
Complementarian) has. Is that person a terrible husband deserving the
discipline of the church? Do people in authority make mistakes? Maybe Mr.
Wilson doesn’t!
#6. “Husbands are charged with presenting their wives sanctified and
spotless to Christ, not burdened and beaten down by neglect and dishonor. A
complementarian man's mission is his wife's joy in Christ. In
fact, Proverbs 12:4 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 imply that a wife haggard in spirit
and squelched in soul is evidence of a husband derelict of his duty, regardless
of his views on gender roles. Any man who treats his wife in a neglectful or
abusive way is no complementarian; he is a walking perversion of manhood in
need of repentance.”
It is exasperating
and tiresome to respond to constant exaggeration. Where, I ask, is this horrible
Christian husband? What was Adam’s great
sin? Was it that he bullied his wife? Perhaps he harassed her and got physical?
Maybe he treated her with emotional disdain? Nope…none of the above. His ‘great
sin’ was that he sat back and did nothing; he passed the reins over to his wife
and she led the way. No, sir, a horribly brutal husband is not modern, American
evangelicalism’s biggest problem: an
effeminate husband is! Why have so many written about the feminization of
the evangelical church? Why is evangelical feminism abounding so much? Why are
more and more evangelical females turning to feminists tendencies? Let me ask
the Complementarian: do the females of your church claim that they are
feminists?
Why
is “my mission” my wife’s joy in Christ? Is not my mission to serve God and
obey his commandments? Part of that mission is my wife’s joy in Christ. Why
does everything center on the wife and woman? Where’s my church, my God, my
children, in this?
And just how do Proverbs 12:4 and 1
Corinthians 11:7 imply a dereliction of duty by a husband? Proverbs 12:4
states:
An excellent wife is the
crown of her husband;
but she who shames him is like rottenness in his bones.
but she who shames him is like rottenness in his bones.
Wilson
has successfully reversed the polarity of the proverb! It has nothing…but nothing...to
do with the husband’s actions, and EVERYTHIG to do with the wife’s actions. A
disobedient wife is rottenness in a husband’s bones…AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH HIM!
1 Corinthians 11:7 states:
For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image
and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Where I come from, we would say, ‘What’s this got
to do with the price of milk?’ In other words, the verse has no bearing at all
on the topic of a bad husband.
And
so the Complementarian ‘turn’ is completed: verses that have nothing to do with
the husband are press-ganged into a narrative that berates the big, bad
husband! Complementarians remind me of modern day snowflakes, white males, who
commit flagellation, despising their own kind (white men) so as to prove
themselves to be true and genuine human beings. With such zeal,
Complementarians skip around traditional concepts, such as unilateralism and
the nature of authority, so that they may testify to the world of evangelical
feminists that Complementarians are truly righteous human beings who are not
misogynistic (like the traditionalists)!
[1]
John Harley, “Issues with Bill Mounce’s Complementarian Reading of 1 Peter 3:6,”
Ridderbos Times (April 17th,
2018), http://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2018/04/bill-mounces-complementarian-reading-of.html,
accessed 4/18/2018.
[2]
Jared C. Wilson, “The Shape of Complementarian
Husbanding,” For the Church (June 15, 2015), https://ftc.co/resource-library/blog-entries/the-shape-of-complementarian-husbanding,
accessed 4/18/2018.
[3]John Harley, Complementarianism's Achilees' Heel," Ridderbos Times (March 7th, 2018), http://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2018/03/complementarianisms-achiles-heel.html, accessed 4/18/2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment