Covenantal Complementarianism; A Manifesto
Covenental Complementarianism:
A Biblical Alternative
Growing
up in my rural Southern Baptist Church, I remember my preacher declaring from
the pulpit: “Men have waffle brains; women have spaghetti brains.” Regardless of his particular point, this
revelation worried me.[1] I
had a spaghetti brain! Just like he said of women, I could not stop a single thought
from crossing all sorts of wires in my mind. I did not think like a man, I did
not have a neat, ordered thought life.
Was he saying I was more of a woman than a man? He likely was operating
in a performative conception of gender. This comes as no surprise, such an
understanding is ubiquitous in our current society.
Currently, the ontologically binary reality of men and women
has been left by the wayside to such an extent that one can shift between identifying
as anything on a whim. Even Evangelical Christianity is not safe from the
culture’s undermining of sexual reality. One expression is the disregard of the
restriction of eldership to men alone: it’s high time to break the glass
ceiling and let women lead the Church. Yet this modern concept of feelings-based
identity can even be found in complementarian circles. Masculinity and femininity
become performative expressions. The reality of manhood and womanhood cannot be
undermined by man as it is defined by God. In order to maintain the ordained
reality of manhood and womanhood, we ought not anchor the difference in their attitudes
but rejoice in the covenantal framework given by God.
When addressing this issue, we need to be careful not to go
too far. In engaging with our modern society, evangelical Christians often feel
as though our culture has gone completely bonkers. And some ways, that is
certainly the case. In the worldviews of many of my peers, homosexuality has
become an established law and anything less than enthusiastic support for
transgenderism is barbaric. All anyone can seem to think about is sex gender
and identity. It has become the esoteric aspect of the religion of secular
humanism. But just because sexual gender identity is the central doctrine of
this modern mysticism, that doesn't mean it should become our central doctrine.
While, it is certainly a subject that Scripture speaks truth into, it is not
central to our faith.
When trying to engage with our
culture and figuring out how the Church should think about gender and sexual
identity, there have been two great errors of modern practical theology on the
subject. One comes from an intensely presuppositional reading of Scripture,
which comes away from any exegesis with the profound discovery that the Bible
happens to have always confirmed what society now holds. Such an approach has
been rightly decried by many in conservative circles. However, there is another
ditch. There is a conservative reaction to the falsities of this culture that
ends up making their conception of traditional gender roles as central to their
Christian faith as the world makes it to their hedonistic creeds. Such
approaches end up treating this issue as a first-tier issue in a theological
triage. Thinking only of how to fortify the Church against egalitarianism this
hyper vigilantism blindly can even push some into unbiblical, and heterodox
teachings.
Instead of trying to keep pace with
our sex-crazed society, the Church ought to focus on what is central to our
faith: Christ is our Cornerstone. Through His life and redeeming work on the
cross, we desperate sinners, are brought into the new covenant in His blood. We
are united to Christ and made a part of his bride, the Church. Marriage is a
covenantal window, made to reflect that greater reality. The Church, both
universal and local, is a covenantal family of the redeemed commissioned to
spread the Kingdom of God together. Complementarianism ought to flow from
biblical ecclesiology, not the other way around. The covenantal responsibilities
specific to the two sexes regulate the vocations of men and women in marriage
and in the Church.
What got us into this mess
The Evangelical Church now finds
itself in this difficult situation of having to formulate biblically loyal
doctrine largely apart from the guidance of Church history. This, in part, is because
modern society has uniquely destroyed much of contemporary understanding of the
home, and because some western theology was corrupted by the unbiblically philosophical
conceptions of sex.
The modern feminist movement was ignited
as a reaction against something we conservative Christians should also decry:
the modernistic destruction of the value of the home. prior to the industrial
revolution the home was viewed as the center of both the public and private
lives of the family. Individual members of the household did not each have
their own occupation, like we have today, but the household itself shared a
vocation. Fathers, mothers, and children shared their public vocational lives
as well as their private restful lives. Their understanding of the family was
both wider and more robust than ours is today. But with the industrial revolution,
this lifestyle is largely destroyed. The men would go out to work outside of
the home, while the women would stay at home. The home became part of the
private sphere, and along with it, women.[2]
Women became solely a part of the home, which by then only served
the function of consumption and retreat. This devaluing naturally led to
objectification and the loss of purpose. It was in reaction to the banishment
of women from the public sphere which sparked the first wave of feminism. Their
solution, however, was to join the outside, public world, leaving behind the
home. And thus, today both men and women reject the value of the home as a
central part of public and private.[3] It
should come as no surprise then that in our modern era conventional concepts of
marriage and family are undervalued. The Church too is susceptible to this
undervaluing of covenantal responsibility founded in the home. In some circles,
it is not uncommon to hear women extolled to be homemakers, while men go out
into their world. The problem with this perspective is the reality that husbands
belong in the home just as much as their wives. The home is not the place for a
private retreat from life, it is the center of mission for the Christian
family.
In such times of uncertainty, Christians can usually lean
upon the wisdom of the historic Church. Aristotelean influence on the Church
fathers and the historic Church’s unhealthy tendency towards ascetic
monasticism rather than marriage, make for a less reliable guide than it tends
to be on other issues. Our perception of women especially is radically
different then what was commonly held in the time of the early Church. And this
is partly because of Christianity’s influence. Feminism, in large part, owes its
philosophical origins to Christian theology.[4] Christianity
in stark contrast with the world around it valued women highly and encouraged
their participation in Christian worship. In the Greco-Roman world, women were
viewed as property and objects. Aristotle even conceived of women being
deformed men.[5]
Yet, even though this is in direct opposition to scripture, some in the early Church
still operated in this framework. In fact, Saint Augustine, had to fight
against the widespread belief that women were not inherently imago Dei. Many
believed that when all things were set right in the new heavens and new earth,
all women would be transformed into the higher ideal, which of course were men.
[6]
Although this Greek influence would gradually fade from
Christianity, it explains why there might be a bit of theological poverty in
the Church, where oftentimes there is a rich abundance of historical theology in
our armories. Even the most strident of complementarians would flinch at how
some earlier theologians talked about the inequality of men and women. [7]
Although it may be worth noting that some of the difficulties and discussions
in our modern age are utterly unique to it. No Church Father or reformer would
have wasted their time theologically proving that men and women cannot change
their sexual identity. It is perhaps due to this lack of a robust defense of
biblical manhood and womanhood that the momentum of the sexual revolution began
to even infiltrate the evangelical Church.
Egalitarianism
Evangelical feminism emphasizes the revolutionarily
egalitarian nature of the gospel in its Greco-Roman context and encourages the
Church to carry on that legacy in the modern era. Egalitarians in the Church
tend to emphasize Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither
slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus.”[8]
Christianity brings with it a radical unity that they say we should embrace in
this age by rethinking the patriarchal constructs of theology that kept the
whole body of Christ from enjoying the full participation of women in the life
of the Church.[9]
Now to be clear, such emphasis itself is not heterodox, and
should be taken seriously. However, despite a great deal of compelling rhetoric,
Much of Christian feminism relies on what always feels like very convenient
ways of explaining away interpretations of scripture that have been consistent
throughout Church history in diverse cultures. That's not to say that many of
these passages that are often appealed to in discussions of gender and Church
duty are indeed confusing. But it does seem extremely convenient that at the
exact same time as when women were beginning to take over leadership positions
in the workforce, the interpretations that conveniently allow women to be the
heads of Churches began to pop up.
In addition, frequently, but not always, the exegesis behind
the passage is what I would like to call a convenient historical fiction. The
background and context of any troublesome passage is explained away by highly
specific instances within its context. The trouble is we do not approach many
other parts of scripture in this same way, because it would be impossible to
know what's happening anywhere.[10] We
have to assume that scripture was written to its specific audience for us, the
general Church. For instance, 2 Timothy 2:11-15 is explained to be a specific
prohibition against female leadership in the Ephesian church. This is because
they had a particular issue with overbearing women leaders due to the potential
influence of the Artemisian cult.[11] Such
a theology that largely exists to excuse what people already want to do, and is
founded upon fictional extrapolations behind scriptural texts, is no steady
foundation for Christian ethics and theology.
It was in response to the growth of Christian egalitarianism in
evangelical circles that Piper and Grudem constructed complementarianism as its
own term and theological concept.[12] It's
not as though they were inventing something entirely new. Piper and Grudem and
the rest of the original signers of the Danvers statement were attempting to
express and codify what was generally held in conservative Christian circles. Namely
that: “Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons
and distinct in their manhood and womanhood. Distinctions in masculine and
feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order.”[13] The
Church needed the emphases of the biblical principles of created difference,
equality,
and complementary roles in the face of conforming to the pattern of
the world. The fact that many Church traditions from across the world adopted
the term complementarian to describe their theology, exemplifies how
complementarianism was not pioneering a new doctrine but merely the codifying
of biblical truth.[14]
Complementarianism, however, is not without its own errors
and misapplications. Although it provides helpful vocabulary and categories
that serve to preserve the historic faith, that does not mean it is without
fault. To clarify, before moving forward, we as a Church are indebted to John Piper,
and the complementarian movement in general, for fortifying the Church against
the chaos of this secular age. Although I will be criticizing Recovering Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood, on the whole, I deeply appreciate it. Yet, as the Church,
we ought to always look to how we can continue to shape our doctrines to better
accord with the faith given to us in scripture. As the reformed tradition knows
well: Ecclesia semper reformanda est. Having been reformed, the Church
must still be reformed.
Universal Complementarianism
Some Christians, when applying the complementarian principle
that husbands and wives are made to be distinct but to work together in
different roles, begin to universalize what scripture intended to be specific. This
Universal Complementarianism[15] at
its best runs the risk of pharisaically adding more law into scripture and
discouraging the healthy participation of women in the life of the Church. But
at its worst, it can undermine the very doctrine of God. Unfortunately, this
tendency was enshrined from the very beginning of the complementarianism
movement, being found even in Piper and Grudem's Recovering Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood.
The danger with Universal Complementarianism is that it takes
what God designed for covenantal relations, namely that of husband and wife, and
extrapolates it into a performative ethic. Things that once defined a husband
and a wife, are now taken to define all men and all women. It urges the
Christian to conform to an ideal form of either masculinity or femininity. They
define the heart of manhood and womanhood as: “A sense of benevolent responsibility
to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing
relationships…mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and
nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s
differing relationships.”[16] If
this was merely a definition of a holy disposition towards one spouse, it would
deserve to be commended. However, instead, it encourages every Christian should
approach their relationships with Christians of the opposite gender in the same
kind of dispensation as they would their spouse (although to a different
degree). Men are supposed to strive towards a masculine ideal, cultivating
leadership, protection and strength. Women are to embrace feminine virtues
within themselves and cultivate themselves into being receiving vessels to
nurture the men in their lives.
The key danger here, if you will notice, is that such
definitions are largely unattached to the physical-biological reality. Instead,
we are given a prescription for uniquely masculine and feminine behaviors that
have little to do with their corporal reality. Physical and vocational
differences do not logically entail different sets of virtues and behaviors. For Piper and Grudem, men and women become
masculine and feminine by cultivating certain dispositions and emotions. Certain
actions and virtues become the domain of either masculinity or femininity. Women
cultivate femininity by their submission just as men are acting masculine when
they are in leadership, implying that submission is feminine, and leadership is
masculine. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, manhood and
womanhood are performances. [17]
This approach sounds dangerously similar to that of the
world. If womanhood is a set of specific behaviors, what if a man lives out
those traits? Is he more of a woman? If a woman is a remarkable leader, is she
masculine? Judith Butler, author of Gender Trouble: Feminism and the
Subversion of Identity, would have you answer yes. As an early
developer of the chaos that is modern gender theory, she emphasized that gender
was entirely just the performance of ascribing to a certain set of traits and
behaviors: “gender reality is created through sustained social performances.”[18] Gender
is a social construct that, with enough social acceptance, can be shifted
around and adopted by any sex. if masculinity and femininity are primarily
defined by behavior rather than created origin, it untethers sexuality from
reality.
Certainly, John Piper
would reject this conception and anything to do with it. After all, Recovering Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood was itself a defense of God’s created order. However, in rooting
his gender ethics in masculine or feminine behaviors and performances, I fear
he allows far more room for Butler than is deserved. His emphasis is on certain
expressions of gender roles, which are not foundational to reality but do
differ from culture to culture, instead of resting in the metaphysical reality
of the sexual binary.
Universal Complementarianism continually runs into the
problem of the bell curve. That is, of making stereotyped generalizations about
men and women, justifying that stereotype in scripture, and, then dismissing
those who don't fit into the stereotype. For example, men are supposedly more
data-driven and women are more into relationships. It's to be expected because
men are to be steering the family and need to be able to process information
well and women are the nurturing mothers and need to build up community. Even
if within a certain cultural context this is statistically true, how then do we
deal with the outliers? If it's charted on the bell curve, what do we do with
those on the ends? Are they sinning by not conforming to their proper gender
roles? These outliers are seldom few. Whenever any generalization is made about
the behaviors of men or women, it will not be true for a good portion of those
men and women. But we do not need to be afraid if God has gifted us in ways
that are not stereotypically part of our gender. To make stereotypes somehow prescriptive
for Christian life both alienates those who are not in the stereotype and
undervalues the reality of the diversity of giftings. Stereotypes are often
dictated by fallible cultural values and paradigms that shift.
Often, even what we perceive as the bible's attitude towards
gender roles is wrong. There are many figures in the Bible who do not conform
to our stereotypes of masculine or feminine, but the problem most likely is not
that they aren't actually truly fulfilling their God-given vocations but
instead that our stereotypes are unsurprisingly wrong. Even in Piper and Grudem's
definition, it is assumed that men are protectors while women are nurtures. However,
the biblical reality is more complicated than that. The only kind of people
called explicitly to nurture in scripture are fathers while women are praised
for their acts of protection and their strength.[19] When
we try and define proper masculinity and femininity it ends up looking a whole
lot like our cultural preconceptions rather than biblical truth.
But by far the greatest danger of universal
complementarianism is historically evident in the tendency of some of its
adherents to prioritize it over deeper doctrines. Keeping in line with impetus to
universalize complementarian principles, some in conservative evangelical
circles began to develop a complementarian trinitarianism. Grudem writes that:
“Primary authority and leadership among the persons of the
Trinity has always been and will always be in the possession of God the Father.
Authority and
submission to authority… are truly divine concepts rooted in the eternal nature
of the Trinity for all eternity and represented in the eternal submission of
the Son to the Father and of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son.”[20]
Drawing heavily from 1
Cor 11:3 : “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is
Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”, Grudem
proposes that his conception of subordination and headship is fundamental not
just to create a reality, but the metaphysical reality of God. Not only are
human relations complementarian, but so are the internal relations of the
Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity, of course, is one of the most
complicatedly confusing doctrines, so at first glance nothing may seem wrong
about this interpretation. However, it stands in contrast to historical
orthodoxy as expressed in both the Athanasian creed: “And in this Trinity, no
one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons
are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in
unity and the one God in three persons.” Historically Christian doctrine has
affirmed that in the divine simplicity of the Godhead there are only relations
of origin not of power. It is only in Christ’s act of humility in the
incarnation that He receives God the father as his head and authority.
I recognize that the orthodox or heterodox nature of the
doctrines of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) or Eternal Functional Subordinationism
(EFS) are nuanced and complex, but the fact of the matter remains: in the
desire to universalize complementarianism, some of its proponents have been
willing to, at the very best, go into theological grey areas in relation to
historic Christianity. This is a symptom of trying to match the culture of the
world blow for blow: “if they're going to make sexual identity the center of
their worldview, so are we!” But such an attitude cheapens the reality of
Christianity's stability. It does not matter what the world has chosen to be
its new craze. We will not fall into the sand if we are sure to build upon the
Rock of Ages. Complementarianism does not make for a good central doctrine, because
it was never meant to be.
God specifies unique duties to men and women in two specific
contexts: marriage and the Church. And so, we should rejoice in applying them
in those contexts. There is an ontological distinction between men and women,
but not an ontological subordination. God did not create men and women with
separate ends.
Covenantal Complementarianism[21]
I would urge Christians to embrace a covenantal understanding
of complementarianism. Instead of playing into the hands of our culture’s
obsession with identity being defined by behavior in defining the nature of men
and women based on their dispositions, Christians ought to instead root the
difference in their created reality and familial callings. The fundamental
reason why men and women are different, is because God created them physically (and
metaphysically) different. However, God gave them both the same mission: “God
blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish
in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves
on the ground.”[22]
It is not as though God made men to subdue and women to fill, they are given
that covenantal responsibility together. When God created man alone, he
remarked that he needed a helper (עֵ֖זֶר)
to complete his mission. עֵ֖זֶר does not refer to some assistant. Elsewhere in scripture עֵ֖זֶר is used to describe military aid and reinforcements, and even
more commonly: God.[23]
God created Eve to be Adam's wife because he needed an ally to complete the
mission God gave to them. The sense is that Adam was vastly outnumbered and
outgunned and it was in dire need of some backup. Being a necessary ally is not a personality
trait, but instead a descriptor of mission.
Men are not given the command to lead and lay down their
lives for womenkind in general, but instead to their wives. In the same way,
God did not call women to generally be affirming and submissive to mankind in
general.[24]
Those duties are right and proper within the covenantal framework of marriage
that God ordained. The difference between men and women is in how they carry
out their mission covenantal. God made certain vocations restricted to certain
sexes: Only men can be fathers, only women can be mothers, etc. This, however,
does not mean that all men have the covenantal responsibility of husbands, nor
all women of wives. It is only when they do take on that covenant, that they
accept the covenantal responsibility that goes with it.
The internal relations of the Church community are not best
understood as that of a relationship between a husband and a wife, but instead
the whole wealth of familial relationships.[25] The
Church is characterized as a covenantal family.[26]
And as a covenantal family, there are fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters.[27] Men
and women are encouraged to participate in the life of the Church. Because it
is a family, and fathers are who God has ordained to lead families, only men
can be the leaders of the Church. But that does not mean that women are off the
hook. The mothers of the Church are to train and lead up those young ones of
the Church.[28]
Women are to learn, pray, and prophecy with the congregation.
Manhood and womanhood are not dependent on feelings. How much
of a man I am does not hinge on my personality? I am a man not because I feel
like a man or tend like things that other men tend to like, but because God
made me a man. My manhood is not a role I play. I don’t need to act like a man;
I actually am a man. My ontology is not performative. Manhood and womanhood are
not roles that were playing nor is fitting within a certain bell curve of
proper masculine and feminine dispositions our eternal aim.
Biblical masculinity and
femininity are not two specific sets of virtues. Rather, all Christians are to
pursue Christ. He is the standard of what virtue we should cultivate. So, does
this imply that Christianity is inherently masculine as it encourages everyone
to be like a man? No, because our faith is far more complex than that. For
while we are all called to be imitators of Christ, we are also called to be the
bride of Christ. The Church herself is described in the feminine. Is
Christianity then androgynous? Far be it. Instead, as each Christian pursues Christ,
they will become truer humanity. They will grow more into true men, and true
women.
Masculinity is embodied virtue in a man, while true
femininity is embodied virtue and a woman. As the Holy Spirit sanctifies men
and women, the more masculine or feminine they will respectively become. But
because God gifts his people in specific and unique ways, this femininity and
masculinity will be diverse.
Some may critique this position of
covenantal complementarianism by pointing out that essentially, I am just
encouraging Christians to fulfill God's explicit commands, but no more. They
might propose that it is an immature way to relate to God in his commands.
Would it not be far better to not only obey the way God commands explicitly but
deduce what the indicative reality behind the imperative is, and use it as a
guiding principle in all of our affairs.[29] While
there may be some merit to this criticism, I think it is far better to humbly
obey the direct commands of God rather than to add to the law based on our
conjecture about the will of God. For that has been the danger in the past.
Influenced by the low Greco-Roman view of women, some in the early Church
extrapolated that God forbade women from being the leaders of Churches because
they were less intelligent, capable, and even not entirely made in the image of
God. They took what was explicit in scripture and extrapolated new conclusions
in an attempt to discern the why of God's command. But they corrupted it with
their fallen philosophies. This is the danger we run whenever we try to preempt
the will of God.
At the end of the day, I don't know
what all the implications are of the ontological distinction between men and
women, nor do I know why God established the covenant of marriage or the
covenantal community in the way He has. However, I take comfort knowing that
only God knows. Who am I, but a man?
As Christians we should joyfully obey what God has commanded
us and yet also rejoice in the freedoms, he has given us. There is no reason
why a woman cannot do everything that an unordained man can do. In fact, women
ought to be encouraged to contribute freely to the life of the Church. Women's
involvement in the Church not be met with fearful philosophizing about how much
woman involvement is too much. we don't have to draw a line in the sand. God
already established the line. It is an impossibility for any woman to become
the father of a Church. Thus with that freedom women should be encouraged to
serve and ministry, to encourage, exhort, and teach others as all Christians
are urged to do:
We
have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift
is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; 7 if
it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if
it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give
generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it
cheerfully.[30]
The Church,
as a whole, comprising of both men and women, is to contribute to the cause of
our faith, uniting together as the body of Christ, using our different gifts in
the Church for the glory of God.
The unchangeable reality of our created sex, and sex-specific
vocations are not so fragile as to be destroyed by violation of the stereotype.
I can do nothing to change my manhood. My spaghetti brain is a masculine
spaghetti brain! Complementarians can find joy in the diversity God has allowed
in His covenantal community. In marriage and in the Church, men and women,
although metaphysically distinct, are united in purpose in both the Church and
in marriage. Herman Bavinck wisely noted: “Both- man and woman-stand thus with
their distinct gifts in a united sacred service, both fulfill a shared precious
calling, and labor at a single divine work.”[31]
[1] In no way do I intend this to be a criticism of my pastor.
[2] Nancy Pearcey and Phillip E.
Johnson, Total Truth (Study Guide Edition - Trade Paperback): Liberating
Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, Study Guide edition (Crossway,
2008), 327.
[3] Pearcey and Johnson, 330.
[4] Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, “Women,
Gender, and Church History,” Church History 71, no. 3 (2002): 600–620.
[5] Charlotte Witt and Lisa Shapiro,
“Feminist History of Philosophy,” November 3, 2000,
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/feminism-femhist/.
[6] Thomas C. Oden, ed., Ancient
Christian Doctrine (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 139.
[7] Thomas Aquinas, The Summa
Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican
Province, English Dominican Province Translation edition (New York: Christian
Classics, 1981), I q. 92 a. 1. “As
regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten,”
[8] (Ga 3:28).
[9] Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex
Roles: What the Bible Says about a Woman’s Place in Church and Family, 3rd
edition (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2006), 5.
[10] Kathy Keller, Jesus, Justice,
and Gender Roles: A Case for Gender Roles in Ministry (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2014), 20.
[11] Wendy Cotter, “Women’s Authority
Roles in Paul’s Churches: Countercultural or Conventional?,” Novum
Testamentum 36, no. 4 (1994): 350–72, https://doi.org/10.2307/1560961.
[12] Ligon Duncan et al., Recovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed.
John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Revised edition (Crossway, 2021) 1.
[13] Piper et al, 2.
[14] Wayne A. Grudem, Countering the
Claims of Evangelical Feminism (Multnomah Publishers, 2006), 286.
[15] My term for it. Can correspond with what some call Broad
Complementarianism.
[16] Piper et al., Recovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 41.
[17] Between Two Kingdoms, “What I Wish
Aimee Byrd’s ‘Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ Had Argued,” Between
Two Kingdoms (blog), September 14, 2020,
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/betweentwokingdoms/2020/09/what-i-wish-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-had-argued/.
[18] Judith Butler, Gender Trouble:
Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1st edition (New York: Routledge,
2006), 192.
[19] Eph 6:4 King James Version: And, ye fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
[20] Grudem et al., Recovering
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 560.
[21] My own term. Can have overlap with what some call “Narrow
Complementarianism.”
[22] (Ge 1:28).
[23] Aimee Byrd, Recovering from
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Illustrated edition (Zondervan, 2020), 189.
[24] (Ep 5:25)
[25] This insight I owe to Dr. Joe Rigney from his lecture series: “What
is man.”
[26] (Gal 6:10)
[27] 1 Timothy 5:2 “Treat older women as you would your mother, and
treat younger women with all purity as you would your own sisters.”
[28] Titus 2:2-5
[29] Such is the line of questioning I would expect from someone like
Alaister Roberts.
[30] (Ro 12:6–8).
[31] Herman Bavinck and James Eglinton,
The Christian Family, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Christian’s Library
Press, 2012) ,7.
Comments
Post a Comment