Meat Complementarianism vs. Biblical Patriarchy

[HomesteadWife]

So I may be opening a can of worms here, but I feel like this is a very important topic. The proper structure of the family and roles of the husband and wife depend upon properly understanding what the Bible says on this.

I've been doing a lot of reading lately about Egalitarianism and Complementarianism. Many of the mainstream articles out there will, I believe falsely, equate complementarianism with biblical patriarchy. One source here: https://www.gotquestions.org/complementarianism.html
Or they will state differences such as a servant leader view of the mans role vs. the role of absolute authority and right to command his wife that patriarchy prescribes.(Seen as a negative thing)

I did find an older thread on here that linked to The Hard Man podcast as a resource for a good view on this but I was also interested in hearing opinions from those on here.

Is complementarianism a watered down version of patriarchy? Is it just a wolf in sheep's clothing claiming to be biblical patriarchy while having feminist egalitarianism at its core? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

 

[southernphotini]

Patriarchy by contrast asserts that men have roles and their women are to wait them in fulfilling them.

I'm likely in the most patriarchal church and I don't recognize that definition of patriarchy. It's completely at odds with Scripture.

Equality is a red herring but women are not chattel. Even the Virgin Mary had agency and gave willing consent.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Complementarianism is a disguised feminism. I’m Hebrides that men and women have distinct but equal roles is the main tenet of feminism.

Patriarchy by contrast asserts that men have roles and their women are to wait them in fulfilling them.

Lol, this is what happens when you try to dash off a quick response first thing in the morning to try and further an interesting thread. Let me try that again.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright take two; complementarianism is simply feminism. The claim that men and women have distinct and equal roles accepts all of the basic claims of feminism.

Patriarchy asserts that a woman’s role is to assist (be a help meet to) her man in his role. Her role is not distinct. The woman was created for the man. They do not have separate but equal roles, they have one role that they contribute different things to. But that role is defined and directed by the man.

Hence and therefor and forthwith, complementarianism es no bueno.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm likely in the most patriarchal church and I don't recognize that definition of patriarchy. It's completely at odds with Scripture.

Equality is a red herring but women are not chattel. Even the Virgin Mary had agency and gave willing consent.

I clarified some of the garbled thoughts but you’re probably still not going to like it. I will be happy to respectfully debate all you want.

 

[southernphotini]

But that role is defined and directed by the man.

Except there are plenty of righteous women in Scripture whose agency wasn’t defined and directed by men.

Based on your perspective, St Paul would be considered a feminist.

I’m not a feminist, far from it, but Christ liberated women from being chattel. That’s a distinctly pagan view of women.

 

[southernphotini]

The woman was created for the man.

The original Hebrew is that woman is a helper, but it has a slight adversarial connotation, as in iron sharpening iron. The Hebrew is the same word translated as Paraclete, or Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is a positive adversary in that it pushes us to be righteous, and is not subservient to our whims. The Spirit is not chattel of the Father, but proceeds from Him in love and righteousness.

This is the model Scripture gives us. Only pagans regarded women as property whose only purpose was to fulfill male desires.

 

[NickF]

Alright take two; complementarianism is simply feminism. The claim that men and women have distinct and equal roles accepts all of the basic claims of feminism.

I’d disagree on some technicalities. Feminism asserts the roles are “indistinct” and exchangeable. As well as being equal in value and authority. Complementarians are feminist light. They assert roles are distinctly different, not equal in authority, but equal in human worth.

Patriarchy asserts that a woman’s role is to assist (be a help meet to) her man in his role.

Agreed

Her role is not distinct.

Her role is the definition OF distinct. Her role is distinctly different from the man’s role.

The woman was created for the man. They do not have separate but equal roles, they have one role that they contribute different things to.

They have distinctly different roles, with one mission or purpose that they each contribute towards.

But that role is defined and directed by the man.

That role is defined and directed by God in scripture. The mission or purpose is defined and directed by the man.

Hence and therefor and forthwith, complementarianism es no bueno.

Agreed.

 

[NickF]

The original Hebrew is that woman is a helper, but it has a slight adversarial connotation, as in iron sharpening iron. The Hebrew is the same word translated as Paraclete, or Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is a positive adversary in that it pushes us to be righteous, and is not subservient to our whims. The Spirit is not chattel of the Father, but proceeds from Him in love and righteousness.

This is the model Scripture gives us. Only pagans regarded women as property whose only purpose was to fulfill male desires.

This idea is unscriptural. I don’t know where you’re getting this but it’s in conflict with all New Testament instructions for women that I know of.

Women are to be in subjection to your husband. And obey him in everything. That’s not adversarial, that’s subjection.

 

[DustinM]

I’m not a feminist, far from it, but Christ liberated women from being chattel. That’s a distinctly pagan view of women.

Need some clarification here, are you suggesting that the Torah / OT aligned with pagan views about the value or roles of women, and Christ somehow liberated them from that?

 

[steve]

That’s not adversarial, that’s subjection.

To many people, subjection is nothing but adversarial.

 

[NickF]

True @steve… true

To expand upon my statement for the readers.

Women are to be in subjection to their husband as we are to be in subjection to Christ.

We aren’t equal with, in an adversarial role with, or entitled to challenge our Lord in ANY THING. If he commands us to die, we die. If he tells us to preach, we preach. Feed His sheep, we feed. There is no equality if he is my Lord.

I may be a joint heir with Him. But he is my master and Lord. So too is my wife a joint heir with me, and she is to treat me as her master and lord. This is a clearly taught and explicit instruction for all believers.

I’m possibly misunderstanding the “Christ liberated women from being chattel” statement.

I’m His property, His slave, His posession. I’m bought with a price. This is not demeaning or degrading. It’s glorious and an exalted position.

 

[DustinM]

Complementarianism is best described as this:

to the Man: "Servant" leadership with 100% responsibility and accountability, but absolutely no meaningful or actual authority over the wife.
to the Wife: "If he leads properly, you'll be able to follow properly, and submission doesn't mean "obey".

I think honestly it's at least as bad or slightly worse than egalitarianism, at least egalitarians are honest about their ridiculous position.

 

[NVIII]

I do think complementariansm and egalitarianism are wolves in sheep's clothing. Remember for any lie to be credible, it must be based on truth. The truth of egalitarianism is in John 3:16. He died for all. The truth of complementarianism is in Genesis 2:18. The male is incomplete (or lacking purpose) without the female. But both philosophies twist the Word.

It always helps me to consider the image that God created in us when trying to understand our purpose or place. Knowing that mankind is the image of God, and that within that unit the male is the image of God and the female is the image of mankind, hopefully the answer to your question becomes clear. This may require some chewing on if you are not already familiar with the concept. There is much joy in understanding it, so I encourage you to study it, and especially the implication of Gen 2:18 as it explains why God created us...!

We are wonderfully adaptable, and capable of surviving in a state of rebellion against His order, but that doesn't negate our innate nature created in us by God and the blessings that could be ours if we submit to it nor the punishment that we incur continuously as a result of rebelling. Where we are today, the unique mess we find ourselves in, a degraded quality of life, confusion, and struggle, is all part of our punishment.

Oh, yes. We have "agency" to choose whatever we will. That's our God-given nature, too. But, we can only choose between blessings and curses. He didn't create a middle ground. And yes, I believe the male has absolute authority over the female, whether or not anyone (himself included) acknowledges it. To think otherwise, one would have to think God does not have absolute authority over mankind, or else His image is flawed. (@NickF beat me to it.)

 

[DustinM]

The male is incomplete (or lacking purpose) without the female. But both philosophies twist the Word.

Gen 2:15 shows the man had a purpose before the woman was made for him. The woman was created to help him on that mission, the mission that G-d gave him, in the same way a wife is supposed to be a helper to the purpose that G-d gives each of us men.

The male was quite complete, the woman was taken *out* of him, to be a helper "suitable" to him. A horse is a good helper in general, but it can't help make human babies.

I agree with most of your statement, this bit just stood out as sounding like a woman is supposed to be a man's purpose, which I disagree with.

 

[southernphotini]

This idea is unscriptural. I don’t know where you’re getting this but it’s in conflict with all New Testament instructions for women that I know of.

Women are to be in subjection to your husband. And obey him in everything. That’s not adversarial, that’s subjection.

It’s Hebrew. The language of Scripture.

Submission and assisting someone in attaining righteousness are not at odds. If your wife isn’t spurring you to be a better man, she isn’t being a godly woman. A woman who excuses your sin, who never pushes back, is bad for your soul.

Zipporah made Moses a better man, and not by simply agreeing with him when he was in error. She followed him to Egypt but she also called out his failing to circumcise his son (saving his life in the process).

 

[southernphotini]

Need some clarification here, are you suggesting that the Torah / OT aligned with pagan views about the value or roles of women, and Christ somehow liberated them from that?

I don’t believe that the OT considered women chattel. Scripture doesn’t demonstrate that.

But Greek and Roman women were absolutely liberated by Christianity.

Christ fulfilled tradition.

 

[southernphotini]

And yes, I believe the male has absolute authority over the female, whether or not anyone (himself included) acknowledges it.

Authority is a different concept. What’s described in previous comments is domination.

It’s a mirror image of God’s authority. We are adopted by the Father. Not slaves. That’s the theology of Islam, not Christianity.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The original Hebrew is that woman is a helper, but it has a slight adversarial connotation, as in iron sharpening iron. The Hebrew is the same word translated as Paraclete, or Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is a positive adversary in that it pushes us to be righteous, and is not subservient to our whims. The Spirit is not chattel of the Father, but proceeds from Him in love and righteousness.

This is the model Scripture gives us. Only pagans regarded women as property whose only purpose was to fulfill male desires.

You’re rushing to conclusions I didn’t make. I never said that women were chattel property or that they’re only purpose was to fulfill male desires. I pointed out that the woman was made for the man.

You’re going to have a hard time in this conversation if you can’t let go of preconceived notions, some might call them straw men.

If you think you can shoehorn Paul into feminism then go ahead. I’d enjoy that spectacle. All of the most patriarchal things in scripture were said by Paul.

But you have a simple and direct statement that you have to deal with. Man was not created for woman but the woman was created for the man.

Am I correct in thinking that you want women to be a “positive adversary” to their men, pushing them to be righteous? Did I misread that?

 

[frederick]

We are adopted by the Father. Not slaves. That’s the theology of Islam, not Christianity.

Titus 1:1, Παῦλος δοῦλος Θεοῦ
He is Master, we are slaves (not even servants).