Weird Christian Gender Fads and Enabling Abuse
Aimee Byrd noted (somewhere on her blog in the archives) that the Complementarian movement needs to address men using its tenets to hide domestic abuse.
I came of age when the Biblical Patriarchy movement was in vogue. We did not hold with many of its dictums (especially the one about girls staying home all the freakin' time and avoiding college) but it still affected us. My dad was just fine with me and my mom wearing pants, but I often felt self-conscious about it. (Really, a stupid thing to obsess over.) I often felt that my hair was not long enough nor our family big enough. (The patriarchy movement seemed to believe that fertility was next to godliness.) When I learned about Complementarianism, it felt like fresh air. Patriarchy stressed hierarchy to the point of totally overlooking "in the image of God He created them, male and female." Reading Genesis it appears that my womanhood has something to tell us about what God is like. I felt strangely relieved when the moral failings of Doug What's-his-name of Vision Forum came to light. Complementarianism has made great progress in countering the abuses of the patriarchy movement.
I do not wish to dismiss Byrd's concern. And I really have little experience with abuse. But I would counter that the Church at large needs a greater sensitivity to abuse. (ACBC is working on that with this year's conference.) Because abusers will use anything handy to justify their behavior. The Bible itself, our inspired writ, has frequently been the tool of abuse. The Complementarian movement has sought to distill some principles from the Bible concerning the way men and women interact. These principles are necessarily reactive -- necessary, I say, because that is the way we are and it is a necessary byproduct of the distillation and subject matter. I don't think that the Complementarian philosophy can adequately address the abuse of the ideas it has proffered.
Wait, I thought of something. More of "How to be Right when Your Spouse is Wrong" and "How to be Angry and Good"? Is that what she means?
I can say also, that across the Complementarian spectrum I definitely prefer some voices to others. I did not like John MacArthur's book (don't remember the title) but I do like John Piper and Tim Keller. And then there's Anne Kennedy. I love her advice: Don't worry about submission and treat your spouse like a human being.
Anyway, I've been enjoying Byrd's blog and thus have been delving into the archives. I sound like a troll for nitpicking. I like the work that she is doing. I like that she is the female voice that gets invited to all-male PCA events. One of the many reasons I went to the dark side and joined the SBC is that I felt like I could have a voice there. But these are my people. And we have seen how one can have a completely elder-led church and zilch accountability. Our hard hearts love rules and we love to bend them to our own vices. We love tribes too. I'm entirely too tribal. Eschewing the tribal labels has some prophetic use.
And yet a further note: there are many complaints over how cumbersome it is to say "complementarian." I mean, my goodness! Elephants and alligators and even the albatross is more elegant! But I personally hate the word "femininity". Probably because it reminds me of "dainty". It makes me feel as if I could never be feminine (especially my high school self).
I came of age when the Biblical Patriarchy movement was in vogue. We did not hold with many of its dictums (especially the one about girls staying home all the freakin' time and avoiding college) but it still affected us. My dad was just fine with me and my mom wearing pants, but I often felt self-conscious about it. (Really, a stupid thing to obsess over.) I often felt that my hair was not long enough nor our family big enough. (The patriarchy movement seemed to believe that fertility was next to godliness.) When I learned about Complementarianism, it felt like fresh air. Patriarchy stressed hierarchy to the point of totally overlooking "in the image of God He created them, male and female." Reading Genesis it appears that my womanhood has something to tell us about what God is like. I felt strangely relieved when the moral failings of Doug What's-his-name of Vision Forum came to light. Complementarianism has made great progress in countering the abuses of the patriarchy movement.
I do not wish to dismiss Byrd's concern. And I really have little experience with abuse. But I would counter that the Church at large needs a greater sensitivity to abuse. (ACBC is working on that with this year's conference.) Because abusers will use anything handy to justify their behavior. The Bible itself, our inspired writ, has frequently been the tool of abuse. The Complementarian movement has sought to distill some principles from the Bible concerning the way men and women interact. These principles are necessarily reactive -- necessary, I say, because that is the way we are and it is a necessary byproduct of the distillation and subject matter. I don't think that the Complementarian philosophy can adequately address the abuse of the ideas it has proffered.
Wait, I thought of something. More of "How to be Right when Your Spouse is Wrong" and "How to be Angry and Good"? Is that what she means?
I can say also, that across the Complementarian spectrum I definitely prefer some voices to others. I did not like John MacArthur's book (don't remember the title) but I do like John Piper and Tim Keller. And then there's Anne Kennedy. I love her advice: Don't worry about submission and treat your spouse like a human being.
Anyway, I've been enjoying Byrd's blog and thus have been delving into the archives. I sound like a troll for nitpicking. I like the work that she is doing. I like that she is the female voice that gets invited to all-male PCA events. One of the many reasons I went to the dark side and joined the SBC is that I felt like I could have a voice there. But these are my people. And we have seen how one can have a completely elder-led church and zilch accountability. Our hard hearts love rules and we love to bend them to our own vices. We love tribes too. I'm entirely too tribal. Eschewing the tribal labels has some prophetic use.
And yet a further note: there are many complaints over how cumbersome it is to say "complementarian." I mean, my goodness! Elephants and alligators and even the albatross is more elegant! But I personally hate the word "femininity". Probably because it reminds me of "dainty". It makes me feel as if I could never be feminine (especially my high school self).
Comments