The Husband’s Headship: An Original Model?

Is the husband’s headship in the home merely a post-fall development, reflective of sin? Or was Eve originally created in a submissive role to Adam?

 Scripture indicates in several ways that Eve was indeed originally created in a submissive role to Adam. First, in Moses writes in Genesis that Eve was created as Adam’s “helper” (Gen. 2:18). She was created to assist him. She was to be his companion, yes, but she was also to be his helper.  Further, Adam named Eve (Gen.3:20). Giving a name is always a symbol and function of authority.

 Next, the apostle Paul tells that it was no accident that Adam was created first — it was reflective of God’s intention that man was to be the leader (1 Tim. 2:12-14).  Moreover, the fact that Eve came from Adam, and not Adam from Eve, also reflects God’s original purpose for man to lead (1 Cor. 11:7-8).

 We might conclude all this also from the fact that the marriage relationship is designed to picture the relationship of Christ to the church and in which the church is subject to Christ (Eph. 5:22ff).

 In any case, both Moses and Paul state plainly that this relationship is one of creation and not of the fall only. To be sure, the woman’s submission to her husband now involves the struggle and labor and competition of the curse (Gen. 3:16b), but it was God’s original intent for marriage nonetheless.   Continue at Fred G. Zaspel

Four Further Thoughts on the Complementarian Conversation

Since my post three weeks ago on New Wave Complementarianism, there has been a, well, wave of responses, rejoinders, and surrejoinders. I won’t take time to link to them all; they are easy enough to find. I am grateful for the thoughtful reflections from my brothers and sisters.

  

I don’t have a lot to add, except to offer a few suggestions that perhaps may help the continuing discussion be a fruitful one.

One, let’s make sure we are all talking about the same thing. No one has trademarked the term “complementarian,” and I understand these labels can be quite fluid. But the best place to start by way of definition is the Danvers Statement. If we are all complementarians having this discussion, we should have some semblance of a definition of complementarianism. Historically (and I realize it’s not a long history), Danvers has provided a useful starting point. Complementarianism, as a definable “ism,” arose in response to a set of concerns (e.g., gender confusion, ambivalence about motherhood, physical abuse, women in unbiblical leadership roles, hermeneutical oddities) and a laid down a set of biblical affirmations (e.g., men and women are equal as divine image bearers, they have distinct roles, redemption reverses the curse of male and female sin, certain ministry roles are reserved for men, there are countless ministry opportunities in the world for both men and women). These concerns and affirmations are not the last word on complementarianism. But if we want to be sure we are talking about the same thing, they should be among the first words.    Continue at Kevin DeYoung

New Wave Complementarianism: A Question and a Concern

I’ve watched with great interest over the past few weeks as a constellation of blog posts have come out calling for a fresh complementarianism. The articles seem to be advocating for a third way between complementarianism and egalitarianism, or at least for an awareness that traditional complementarians have many weaknesses and egalitarians are asking a lot of good questions. The message often has an apologetic edge: we are complementarians, but not the ones you’re used to.  

The most explicit post along these lines is Wendy Alsup’s article on new wave complementarianism. The piece struck a nerve, prompting many women to write comments to the effect, “I agree with everything you’ve said. I’ve been wanting someone to say this for years.” Alsup’s article, and others like it, have been recommended and retweeted by some of my good friends. There is something about the idea of a “new wave” of complementarianism that some—I’m not sure if it’s few, several, or many, so I’ll stick with some—find attractive. 

I’ve been wrestling for a couple weeks now about how to respond to Alsup’s post (or if I should respond at all). I don’t want to turn something small into something bigger than it needs to be, and I don’t want to discourage new complementarian voices (often women) from being heard. And yet, something about these posts, and Alsup’s in particular, leaves me unsettled. With that in mind, I’d like to ask one specific question and raise one general caution.

One Specific Question   Continue at Kevin DeYoung

See also: 

 Speaking of Beautiful Things in a Beautiful Way: Complementarianism “New” or “Old”

  Some Clarifications About NWC and a Response to Kevin DeYoung’s Question

Who Will Teach the Women Who Want to Be Taught?

It may be better to sleep on the corner of the rooftop than live with a quarrelsome woman, but friends, educate that woman and there is hardly a limit to what she can do with her mouth and mind—for good or evil.

God created woman as a helper knowing Adam would need help. What that help was exactly will be up for debate for centuries; we only know that the command to both man and woman at that point was to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth. A friend of mine confesses that at times he fears exposing his weaknesses to women in his life for various reasons. To which I replied that a woman was born to see a need, to come and encompass that need, nurture it until the time is right for it to be birthed into something more beautiful than he could imagine. We are built to help in ways men will never be able to help. That is our good design.

Disciplers on the Rise

Another friend and I were talking recently about the droves of women coming out of seminary in the coming years. These women have or will have studied biblical texts, learned Hebrew and Greek proficiently, interacted with scholars, and written theses. They have a deep and true abiding love of God's Word, and a respect for the inerrancy of it. Women make up more than 51 percent of seminary students, and we can probably expect that number to grow.

These women have taken the command to be fruitful and multiply seriously, and for many, in the absence of their own children, they have become incubators of God's Word. They meditate on it, murmur on it, pray it, speak it, and teach it. They are poised for a gracious reception of hungry souls, souls weary of milk, starving for meat. They are disciples.    Continue at Lore Ferguson

Debatable: Is Complementarianism Another Word for Patriarchy?

[Note: "Debatable" is a new feature in which we briefly summarize debates within the evangelical community.]

The Issue: Is complementarianism another word for patriarchy? Egalitarians and many complementarians agree: It is indeed. But a recent debate attempts to determine whether this should be acknowledged as a timeless biblical norm or rejected as an outdated cultural standard.

Position #1: Russell Moore, dean of the School of Theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Seminary, recently said at the Together for the Gospel conference that complementarians should practice what they preach:

What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off "complementarian" on a box but who really aren't living out complementarian lives. Sometimes I fear we have marriages that are functionally egalitarian, because they are within the structure of the larger society. If all we are doing is saying "male headship" and "wives submit to your husbands," but we're not really defining what that looks like . . . in this kind of culture, when those things are being challenged, then it's simply going to go away.

Position #2: Rachel Held Evans, an author and blogger, agrees but says complementarianism is losing because it is "nothing more, nothing less" than patriarchy:

1. They are losing ground because more and more evangelical theologians, scholars, professors, and pastors are thoughtfully debunking a complementarian interpretation of Scripture and doing it at the popular level through books like The Blue Parakeet (by Scot McKnight), Discovering Biblical Equality (by Ronald Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Gordon Fee), How I Changed My Mind About Women in Church Leadership (by a who's who of evangelical leaders), through evangelical colleges and seminaries that celebrate women's giftedness to lead and are producing record numbers of female graduates, and through organizations like Christians for Biblical Equality.   Continue at Joe Carter

Wives Speak Out

Can we be anecdotal for a few moments? To be clear, TGC and the women represented in this article believe what they believe about marriage not primarily because of experience but fundamentally because of God's Word. But I've been impressed lately by a host of strong, gifted married women who actually, joyfully, and productively give witness to the beauty of Scripture's pattern for marriage---headship and submission and all!

Complementarians often hear that women's gifts are being ignored or unused. Certainly in some cases this is true. However, in an effort to soften or eliminate biblical distinctions between women and men, women's hardships are too often blamed on those distinctions rather than on sinful human hearts that---whether they lean toward complementarianism or egalitarianism---so easily pursue selfish gain rather than the other's good. Might it be possible that the gospel lived out in marriage can by God's grace restore to the headship and submission of husbands and wives their rightful, Christ-reflecting beauty?

The following words from women are not proofs but glimpses of such grace. The focus here is limited, as we peer briefly into the lives of a few married women---acknowledging that such stories of grace, strength, and productivity emerge from all kinds of lives, married or not. But marriage has been on our cultural minds lately, in many ways, not just in the church. All the forces battering this institution have actually brought it vividly onto the public stage for a hearing. Because of these cultural battles, but especially because of the way the Bible talks about it, marriage is a crucial subject for all of us no matter what our relational status.  Keep Reading >>>

I’m a Complementarian, But… Women Can Be Deacons

I believe answering the question “What meaningful role can and should women play in congregational life?” is as important a practical and spiritual question we can consider. It’s a question that affects at least half (usually much more) of our congregations. It’s a question that touches directly upon gospel-ordered congregational life. It’s a question that potentially restricts or broadens Christian freedom for women in our churches. It’s a question that either employs or unemploys the gifts the Lord himself sovereignly grants to our sisters.

How we answer the question must be shaped and limited by the word of God. But we approach the word of God with assumptions, presuppositions, biases, historical understandings, and personal filters. None of us come to the word as empty slates; we have “tilts” that may or may not be known to us. That’s why humility, openness, and community become so important in discussions like these. We need others to help us see and learn. The way you all have commented and participated in this discussion has taught me much and modeled the kind of conversations Christian people ought to have about potentially contentious issues. Thank you.  Continue Reading>>>