View Single Post
Old 03-30-2018, 08:15 AM   #12
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 33
Default Re: Egalitarianism Vs. Complementarianism

Originally Posted by Nell View Post

What kind of theological "maneuvering"?

Can we agree on these definitions?

Christian egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal or level), also known as biblical equality, is a Christian form of egalitarianism. It holds that all human persons are created equally in God's sight—equal in fundamental worth and moral status. This view does not just apply to gender, but to religion, skin colour and any other differences between individuals. It does not imply that all have equal skills, abilities, interests, or physiological or genetic traits. Christian egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.

Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,[1] that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. The word "complementary" and its cognates are currently used[2] to denote this view. For some Christians whose complementarian view is biblically-prescribed, these separate roles preclude women from specific functions of ministry within the community.[3][4] Though women may be precluded from certain roles and ministries they are held to be equal in moral value and of equal status. The phrase used to describe this is 'Ontologically equal, Functionally different'.[5]

Complementarians assign primary headship roles to men and support roles to women—based on their interpretation of certain biblical passages. One of the precepts of complementarianism is that while women may assist in the decision-making process, the ultimate authority for the decision is the purview of the male in marriage, courtship, and in the polity of churches subscribing to this view.

So, one example of what I think is "maneuvering" can be found in this excerpt from the Junia Project, (the full article can be found here: )where the author attempts to pick apart Paul's intent in 1Tim 2:12 however, their effort pretty much falls flat with what seems to be all smoke and no fire.

"Before we conclude that this passage is “clear” we must consider the limitations of our English translations. The most problematic issue is the rendering of the verb authentein as authority. This unusual Greek verb is found only once in scripture and rarely in extrabiblical texts, where it is usually associated with aggression. Authentein is translated as “domineer” in the Latin Vulgate and New English Bible and as “usurp authority” in the Geneva and King James Bibles.

A study of Paul’s letters shows that he regularly used a form of the Greek “exousia” when referring to the use of authority in the church (see 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 9:4-6, 9:12, 11:10, 2 Cor 2:8, 10:8, 13:10, Col. 1:13, 2 Thess 3:12, Rom 6:15, 9:21). So it is strange that some modern versions translate this simply as “authority”. Considering the context, it is likely that Paul was objecting to something other than the legitimate use of authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. (More on authentein here, and see a more recent follow-up post here.)

There is also the possibility that the verb didaskein (to teach) is linked here to the verb authentein in what is called a hendiadys (two words joined by a conjunction to make a single point). “Don’t eat and run” would be a modern example. So a better interpretation might be “don’t teach in a domineering way”.

Additionally, the grammar in this passage changes abruptly from the plural “women” in verses 9 & 10 to “a woman” in verses 11-15. Then it changes back to “women” in the next chapter, suggesting that Paul had a specific woman in mind, perhaps one that Timothy had written to him about. Furthermore, some scholars believe “I don’t permit” could also be accurately translated as “I am not currently permitting”. So while these verses are often used to defend male-only leadership, current scholarship suggests that the passage is anything BUT clear on the issue."

Regarding the definitions, I would not agree on those definitions. May I ask where you found them? The author is clearly being more charitable to Egalitarianism. The invocation of race is troublesome given that this is also a tactic used by the LGBT movement in an attempt to ride the coat tails of racial discrimination in order to promote their agenda. Furthermore, the definition of Egalitarianism could also be used to define complementarianism which also holds that "all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race." Complementarians just maintain that God, as indicated by the Scriptures, has not called women to be in ministries that place them in authority over adult men. Also, the author injects Judaism and Islam into the definition of "Christian Egalitarianism", which seems like an attempt at projecting legalistic patriarchal characteristics onto that view point.
seeking1 is offline   Reply With Quote