Many complementarians think only in black-and-white. They believe that egalitarian teaching automatically means that the wife does not submit. They think it means that she automatically will not serve her husband. They do not believe that a relationship can function without one person having the tiebreaker vote. They say that the call to submission is not a lesser role, yet they balk at the idea of the husband submitting to the wife. They place more value on having the proper structures than they do on ensuring the health and autonomy of all parties. It is a wonder that they are able to maintain friendships among like genders. Perhaps this is the main contributor to the loneliness epidemic among males? (and also a contributor to the excessive amount of church splits amongst certain church groups.)
The saying "equal in value, different in function" is relatively new on the scene, since for most of church history, the church did in fact believe that women were of lesser value. This saying mirrors the justification of slavery in the 1800's. Some sadly still believe that slavery was justifiable as long as the owner was "benevolent." Most, however, would at least not dare to admit these thoughts out loud.
While prooftexts can be found for both arguments, it baffles me the amount of people who choose not to even acknowledge that there are any other reasonable interpetations and automatically choose the harsher one.
This is the best article I've read on these thoughts. The author has since passed away, but I will also include links to the books she wrote.
Equal in Being–Unequal in Function: The Gender Hierarchy Argument
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.