Saturday, January 25, 2014

It's Not Complementarity, It's Hierarchy

Yesterday, as I was talking about my yesterday's blog post my husband Ira suddenly looked at me and said, "That's not complementarity. Complementarity should be about strengths that complement." I stopped dead in my tracks and thought, "What a brilliant thought!"

Suddenly it all made sense. If men should lead because they are men, and not because they are more competent, what is taught as complementary theology is not about men and women complementing each other; it's about hierarchy.

A hierarchy is not based on strengths and weaknesses, innate abilities or inclinations. A hierarchy is based on an attribute that gives those on the top more power than those on the bottom, and this power is maintained by legal rights. In classism, that attribute is wealth; those who have more money are at the top, and keep themselves there by legal means (such as inheritance laws etc). In racism, that attribute is color of one's skin; those who are (in our time) light-skinned are at the top of the hierarchy, and systematic segregation gives more power to those on the top. In sexism, that attribute is the male sex; those who are men are at the top of the hierarchy, and unjust laws and customs give men more power.
 

If theological complementarity was about completing strengths in men and women, men would have to be wiser, smarter, more competent leaders in order to complete the lack of leadership skills in women. The church did believe this was the case for many centuries because the scientists of antiquity taught women were inferior beings. About a century ago, modern science proved their ancient counterparts wrong, and women saw their equality to men restored. As a result, women emerged as perfectly able leaders in all areas of life. Now, the question is, how are men and women supposed to complement each other in the area of leading if both are equally good leaders?

Hierarchical theologians tell us that men and women complement each other when men make decisions, and women mop floors. But are men not able to do housework? Of course they are; thousands of men work as janitors. If men and women are equally able to clean and make decisions, yet women shouldn't participate in decisions making, we are looking at a hierarchy in which men are relieved from having to do mundane tasks, and women are prevented from participating in the decision making process. This kind of hierarchy has nothing to with complementarity; it has everything to do with worth.

A hierarchy is always based on worth. If it is based on money, the wealthy are considered "better" than others; if on color of one's skin, the lighter, the better; if on gender, men are priced above women. In order to create a hierarchy, hierarchical theologians have to somehow get around the concept of human equality, for a hierarchy of worth and equality are incompatible; if all humans are of equal worth, how can some be of greater worth? Because of this inconvenient fact, hierarchical theologians must somehow get rid of the idea that men and women are created equal. To accomplish this, they sometimes divide the image of God, or claim women are more emotional (and therefore unable to lead). Other times they claim men have an innate inclination to lead, or that women want men to be strong leaders in order to relieve them from the responsibility. Regardless of the methodology, hierarchical theologians must somehow put the man on the top of the hierarchy and give him greater rights, but they cannot do so and remain faithful to the Bible.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Piper and the Bride of Christ


John Piper, a hierarchical theologian, is convinced that men aren't called to lead because they are more competent. They are just, well, called to lead. And while it is true that the gift of leading is a charisma, a spiritual gift, and given to members of the Body of Christ solely at the discretion of God (1 Cor 12), should we assume that the gift doesn't come with some level of competence? Do people perform miracles without having the ability to perform miracles?

Yet, Piper is absolutely convinced that men should lead simply because they feel the need to lead:


"At the heart of mature manhood is the God-given sense (disposition, inclination) that the primary responsibility (not sole responsibility) lies with him when it comes to leadership-initiative, provision, and protection. And at the heart of mature womanhood is the God-given sense (disposition, inclination) that none of this implies her inferiority, but that it will be a beautiful thing to come alongside such a man and gladly affirm and receive this kind of leadership and provision and protection."

(Read the whole article at, http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/god-created-man-male-and-female-what-does-it-mean-to-be-complementarian)

Now this leads us to the egalitarian argument that men claim they have a divine right to exclude women because of Genesis 3. Just consider it: men shouldn't lead because they are better, wiser, more competent; they should lead because they have a "sense" that they should lead, an "inclination" to lead, a "disposition" to lead.

All humans have an inclination and disposition to sin. Does it mean God has called us to sin? Heaven forbid.

The concepts of masculinity and femininity are based on observations. What do men really like, what do women prefer? A pink bicycle? A sports car? A woman may like a sports car just as much as a man may prefer to buy a pink bicycle - unless their culture tells them that there is something wrong with their choices, in which case they may decline and follow the cultural cues.

Because Piper is convinced that God has called men to lead, he does his best to find these "inclinations" in the Bible.

“Let’s look first at a text dealing with marriage and then one dealing very briefly with the church. In both texts, Christ-like, humble, loving, sacrificial men are to take primary responsibility for leadership, provision and protection. And women are called to come alongside these men, support that leadership, and advance the kingdom Christ with the full range of her gifts in the paths laid out in Scripture.”

But what if a man isn't humble, loving, and sacrificial? Who tells him that he is disqualified from leadership

In other words, it is about competence.

If only those who are mature and able to lead, because they exhibit all the necessary traits (which is Paul's view in 1 Timothy 3), should lead, why does Piper say men were called to lead whether they are competent or not?
Not even Luther was so foolish as to say that incompetent men should be part of ecclesiastical leadership. 

Piper continues:


“In this drama, the husband takes his cues from Christ and the wife takes her cues from God's will for the church. Verse 25: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Verse 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.””

This begs the question: isn’t the church the one who preaches, teaches, baptizes, and imitates all the things that Jesus did when he was on earth? If the church should imitate Jesus in all things, why shouldn't the wife imitate her husband in all things?

Suddenly Piper does something interesting. He equates leading with sacrifice:

“So the primary responsibility for initiative and leadership in the home is to come from the husband who is taking his cues from Christ, the head. And it is clear that this is not about rights and power, but about responsibility and sacrifice. Verse 25: “As Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.”  No abuse. No bossiness. No authoritarianism. No arrogance. Here is a man whose pride has been broken by his own need for a Savior, and he is willing to bear the burden of leadership given to him by his Master, no matter how heavy the load. Godly women see this and are glad.”

Yet, Ephesians 5:1-2 tells all Christians to imitate Christ who loved the church and gave himself for her. We should all live the life of love. This does not give husbands any extra responsibilities.
 

Piper needs to tie the home to the church because of his argument that all men are called to lead, but when he attempts this fusion, he breaks his own argument in a way that he cannot later fix.

 “We don’t have time to develop the arguments for how this applies to the church. So I will just make some summary comments so you can know how we as complementarians see it. In 1 Timothy 2:12 Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” In the context we take that to mean: the primary responsibility for governance and teaching in the church should be carried by spiritual men. These are the two functions that distinguish elders from deacons: governing (1 Timothy 5:17) and teaching (1 Timothy 3:2). So the clearest way we apply this passage is to say that the elders of the church should be spiritual men.”

Because husbands are men, and women shouldn't exercise authority over men, overseers should be men. Case closed -  except that it isn't. This argument begs the same question we already mention above: if women should take their cue from the church, should they not be the ones who teach and govern the way the church does?

Piper tries to fix what he has broken, but alas, it's too late:


“In other words, since the church is the family of God, the realities of headship and submission that we saw in marriage (Ephesians 5:22ff) have their counterparts in the church.

  • Authority” (in 1 Timothy 2:12) refers to the divine calling of spiritual, gifted men to take primary responsibility as elders for Christlike, servant-leadership and teaching in the church.
  • And “submission” refers to the divine calling of the rest of the church, both men and women, to honor and affirm the leadership and teaching of the elders and to be equipped by them for the hundreds and hundreds of various ministries available to men and women in the service of Christ.”

All men should lead in the home because the husband is likened to Christ, and overseers should lead because the church is the family of God. Yet, this begs the question: who is the husband of the church? Jesus. Who is the bride of Christ? The Church. If the bride of Christ, the church, has the divine calling to teach and lead both men and women, why doesn't the bride of every man?





Source: 

Karant-Nunn Susan C. and Wiesner-Hanks Merry E., Luther on Women, A Sourcebook [Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 75.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Piper and the Immature Young Man



John Piper wrote the following short story in order to illustrate the differences that exist between men and women:

"[L]et me create an illustration to portray some of the differences between manhood and womanhood. A picture may be worth a thousand words — even a word picture. Suppose among the young adults at the Downtown Campus a young man and woman — say 20-years old — find themselves chatting before the worship service. He likes what he hears and sees, and says, “Are you sitting with anyone?” They sit together. They notice how each engages with God in worship.
When the service is over, as they are leaving, he says, “Do you have any lunch plans? I’d love to treat you to lunch.” At that point she can signal she is not interested, “I do have some plans. But thanks.” Or she can signal the opposite: “I do, but let me make a call. I think I can change them. I’d love to go.”

Neither has a car, so he suggests they walk to Maria’s Café down on Franklin Avenue, about 10 minutes from the church. As they walk he finds out that she has a black belt in martial arts, and that she is one of the best in the state. At 19th Street two men block their way ominously and say, “Pretty girl friend you’ve got there. We’d like her purse and your wallet. In fact, she's so pretty we’d like her.” The thought goes through his head: "She can whip these guys." But instead of stepping behind her, he takes her arm, pulls her back behind him, and says, “If you’re going to touch her, it will be over my dead body.”

When they make their move, he tackles them both and tells her to run. They knock him unconscious, but before they know what hit them, she has put them both on their backs with their teeth knocked out. And a little crowd has gathered. The police and ambulance come and she gets in the ambulance with the young man. And she has one main thought on the way to the hospital: This is the kind of man I want to marry.”

(Read the whole article at,
http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/god-created-man-male-and-female-what-does-it-mean-to-be-complementarian)

Before we point out the obvious fallacies in this story, notice what Piper does in this story: he tells men and women to always let the man take the initiative, whether is in beating someone up, teaching, leading, painting the house, or initiating a romantic evening. It doesn’t matter if the woman is stronger, wiser, more capable, more artistic, or more eager—the man has to go first, even if it means he ends up in the hospital.

I don’t know about you, but I think this is really foolish advice. I’d like to have my house painted well, and I like to listen to those who are wiser than I am. I don't believe we should try to be impressive, instead we should strive to be authentic.


Now, let’s look at the story.

First of all, a woman who has a black belt in martial arts has one for a reason. Clearly she likes the idea of being able to defend herself. Does Piper really expect us to believe that a young woman who has a black belt in martial arts is going to be impressed by a young man who pushes her aside in order to show how brave he is? And we are not talking about just a little impressed; we are talking about “I will marry you”-kind of impressed.

I don’t think so - nor does the Bible.

A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it (Prov 22:3, NIV).


Yet, Piper seems to be of the opinion that every young woman should swoon at the sight of male bravery:

“[I]t is irrelevant to the masculine soul that a woman he is with has greater self-defending competencies. It is his deep, God-given, masculine impulse to protect her. It is not a matter of superior competency. It is a matter of manhood. She saw it. She did not feel belittled by it, but honored, and she loved it.”

Is protection a masculine impulse that exists only in the man? Mothers, for example, are extremely protective of their children. Is a mother's impulse to protect her children not equally a masculine impulse that exists in women? If so, should a woman never protect a man, especially when she is more competent?

According to Piper competence has nothing to do with a man’s desire to lead:

 
“First, he took the initiative and asked if he could sit with her and if she would go to lunch and suggested the place and how to get there. She saw clearly what he was doing, and responded freely according to her desires. She joined the dance. This says nothing about who has superior competences in planning. God writes the impulse to lead on a man's heart. And the wisdom to discern it and enjoy it on a woman's.”

What Piper does here is tell men that they should be foolhardy and act beyond their competence level, and women that they are allowed to clean up the mess that follows. Imagine if men took his advice in all aspects of life: in finances, marriage, driving. How many bankruptcies, divorces, and wrecks would we see?

It is not a sign of maturity to act foolishly; it is a sign of immaturity and an inflated ego. If the young man had wanted to get a chance to see the young woman again, he would have let her take care of the situation and then joined her at the dojo the next day. It would've created a common interest that would have allowed them to decide whether their relationship was worth pursuing. In Piper's scenario, the young man would have to spend the next few years paying off the hospital bill due to his recklessness.

Wisdom is shown by deeds that are done in humility that comes from wisdom (Jas 3:13); a wise person is not afraid to appear weak, or vulnerable.


To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:7-10, NIV).


We can be strong in ourselves, or become weak and allow God be strong in us. Those who are strong and secure in God do not have to try to appear impressive; they know who they are.