I have read of some who were around when “complementarian” was invented. They would speak reverently and in awe of the term. It certainly was a brilliant move that provided folks with a sophisticated sounding, eight-syllable word to use. Who would argue with a fancy term like that? After that, we could assign ourselves to one of two broad categories: egalitarian or complementarian. Egalitarian was always fairly straightforward but complementarian meant something a lot more fuzzy and not much more than that it was not egalitarian.
It’s a political reality that issues are won or lost on the terminology that becomes acceptable.
So here we are a generation after its invention. Find me a complementarian who will offer a definitive list of what women can and cannot do. The beleaguered Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a group not voted on by any SBC messenger, doesn’t do that. The ‘experts’ in the field do not, preferring more vague approaches.
Hey, I’m just a pastor. Saying I was complementarian was a simple way of expressing things. But I can’t do that any more. Now one has to specify what kind of complementarian one is: hard or soft, broad or narrow, strict. This complimentarian business is complicated. I just learned that a “broad” complementarian is the same as a ‘hard’ complimentarian. Rather counterintuitive, I think. Maybe the adjectives have a scholarly underpinning. Sounds to me like picking the more attractive term “broad” for your side and assigning the more unattractive term “narrow” to the other side. Confusing, but I appreciate those who are deep into this being congenial, kind, and cooperative.
So long, “complementarianism,” you had a pretty good run in this Grand Old Convention but you’re not worth diddly-squat any more.
__________
“Clickbait” sayeth Dave Miller. “Scintilliating, erudite, and short” sayeth your humber hacker and plodder blogger.
See you in Birmingham. If you want to comp something, meet me for lunch.
You’re right, the terms seem flipped. Who gets to create the terms? Can they issue a retraction? I’m sure that wouldn’t complicate it any further!
Yeah I hadn’t heard which was broad or which was narrow, but I had assumed narrow would be hard because what they allow women to do is so narrow. You mean that broad means they broadly prohibit? How odd. Am I misunderstanding?
Actually nevermind, I don’t even care anymore.
This. Is. Brilliant.
The death of 1000 adjectives.
I agree that the common usage of broad and narrow is counterintuitive. I find it very confusing.
Agreed. This makes it worse.
Control the language, control the culture.
Yep….
When everyone becomes complementarian. No one is.
Seems everyone wants to claim to be one – no matter what they believe, articulate or affirm by silence when the issue arrises about gender role distinction within the church ….. so I lmust agree the whole term is being rendered pointless.
I think the same problems apply (to some degree or another) to the terms Calvinist, reformed, traditionalist (is that even a thing now?), and even inerrant..
Perhaps we should adopt the position that if a word requires a “council” to define it, we should probably stay away from it.
So you want to stay away from the Council of Nicea that defined Homoousios?
Lol!
Just look at how that one has taken off…
I wish i would have said that Bill Mac
“Socialism” is another one. To quote Inigo Montoya, “you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”
The problem does not lie in the terminology, but in the treatment of Scripture as a wax nose to be shaped to fit ones own proclivities.
Yep. Reasons, IMO, that complementarianism is in danger, despite biblical teaching and historic practice, of becoming an obsolete conviction in the SBC include primarily:
1. the desire of some for women to be encouraged to endeavor into, at least, the functions of the office of elder/pastor.
2. The overwhelming desire of some to be culturally/socially acceptable.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Tarheel.
Remember Sally Fields at her Oscar acceptance speech…..
You like me, you really do like me……. big smile , and cue the band
As this debate heats up ( SBC is late to the party)
Would it help or hurt to possibly start at what we assume to be clear?
What, if any did Paul give as clear qualifications for women in positions of authority?
Since complementarianism is neither a biblical term or one historically defined, it tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
Thus, you have hard complementarians like Randall and Dave Cline patting one another on the back for being the faithful few and you have others who consider themselves biblical and use the term but see other interpretations.
It is seems to be an ill defined word which results in what we have – a lot of confusion and the more dogmatic folks claiming they are the true blue complementarians.
I am open to new, non-pejorative terms.
A word is a word is a word..
But words have to have meaning.
I am old enough to remember when the word gender had an actual meaning
It’s not the word complementarian, we have to define what the actual qualifications are for elder, pastor. It matters little what the term is called, but what does it mean, not in a philosophical, seminary sense, but in realville, where it gets applied,
I am actually content, as per my previous article, to ignore the word complementarian, and simply demand that pastors and churches abide by the BF&M 2000 – reserve the pastoral role for men.
Beyond that, we leave it to the autonomy of the local church.
And – re: as to getting people “backslapping” on this forum….
You get your share of it around here – let someone else play too. 😉
Dave, very well said, very well
Also – we’ve already had this discussion about attempting to represent each other more accurately… I have said numerous times that I do not consider myself to be a hard complementarian. Yet you repeatedly insist on calling me that.
I have *only* spoken an objection to the “office“ of Pastor being separated from, what you have spoken of in the past as a primary function of the office, preaching/exhorting/teaching scripture to the gathered church. I have also clearly said… Numerous times… On numerous discussion thread… That I encourage both men and women to use their God-given spiritual gifts within the body of Christ and in the proper setting that can include women teaching.
Tarheel you are totally correct as I understand the previous discussions. Seems like that dog hunting is a problem.
For the record, I first saw the broad/narrow stuff from Denny Burk. He was quite irenic in making his points.
It doesn’t bother me that tarheel and colfield state their views, nor schreiner and Burk. I’m generally ok with the bfm as the test. Some entities are already beyond that with extra-SBC/BFM declarations. We would be headed for difficulty if we added required explanations or adjectives.
I’m a cooperative kinda guy…
My guess is that the debate will try to be framed around “functional” pastors/elders. “True” complementarians will insist on this
As one, yes I agree William…..if someone is functioning in the capacity of elder then they are acting as an elder/pastor and we know the biblical requirements for that. BFM clearly states pastor not just lead or senior pastor. Surely those who wrote the BFM would have said senior pastor if they only meant that. Furthermore the BFM doesn’t trump scripture and we know what qualifications the scriptures lays out for pastor….
Well…..
The term “Office” has functional implications….does it not?
Yes tarheel
Thanks William – all I have done here is shared my conviction… I never have and I am not now, despite the incessant accusation from one of the administrators of this blog, demanded that anyone agree with me or conform to my view.
That said, I believe my conviction is correct… Or else I would not hold to it… I expect that’s true for anyone who holds to a conviction… At least I would hope so.
William,,,for me the SBC revolves around the CP. You are correct the BFM is the test. We have been discussing in one way or another who gets to stay in and who does not. However it does seem to me that the X’ers and Mils are not asking what do I need t do to stay in the SBC, rather WHY should I be a part. IMO if we do not increase the discussion on the value of the SBC and why one should cooperate we will have some rough roads ahead.
I wonder if we need to update the BFM 2000 and address this issue in our confessional statement to bring more clarity. I know this opens a can of worms, but there are many varying interpretations being articulated on the BFM’s statement on the “office” of pastor/elder.
Sean, why draw the strings tighter? On a scale of one to ten how important is this to advancing the Kingdom. It just seems to me that we have bigger fish to fry. We are declining in every important area of our mission. We need to ask and address Why”. Arguing about the role of women , Calvinism, etc will not address our decline. It will just bring division.
Great questions. I appreciate the interaction. I think the issue is the authority and sufficiency of Scripture and that is utmost in advancing the gospel. Why are we declining? It could be lip service to the authority of Scripture, but when it comes to the sufficiency of Scripture to order our churches and our mission, we bow to pragmatism and cultural pressures. Is the role of women in ministry a front-burner issue? It is secondary, but it is a symptom of what I think is the front burner issue–the sufficiency of Scripture. What do you think will address our decline? And is division necessarily a bad thing if it brings greater fidelity to the Scriptures and a clarity of vision for our future as Southern Baptists. The current conversations on this issue are confusing to many and are making it very difficult for people like me to continue fully engaging in SBC life if this is the trajectory forward. How does this issue impact church planting? The seminaries? The foreign mission field? It has great implications on how we do shared ministry as a Convention. I wonder what you think is the big issue as to our decline and how we can address it. Thank you.
Sean great comments and questions. I totally agree the issue is the authority and sufficiency of scripture. Now let be make everyone mad. Why re we declining? Because we would rather sit in Starbucks write blogs and make comments about non essential issues, than beat the bushes (Dr. Roy fishes’s term) and win people to Jesus. Yes I have been judgmental and questioned motives. However, the world is going to hell maybe it is time to evaluate motives.
So let’s just say there’s a Baptist church that has a female co-pastor and about a third of the diaconate is female. It’s a congregation that fell on hard times demographically and had trouble finding a man who would take it, because of the risk of disbanding and failure. Now it is experiencing a revival of sorts. The female co-pastor shares preaching responsibilities in the earlier, and more contemporary, of the two Sunday services. It”s at 8:30 so the attendance is smaller than the later service where the male preaches, but not by much. Baptisms are frequent and do not just consist of children under 12, the majority being Gen X’ers and Millennials. There is spiritual movement in the services, the membership and attendance is growing and is nearly as large as it was in the church’s “heyday.” The visible signs are that the church is blessed by God.
Or is it just faking it and becoming a cultural instutition?
You lost me at “female copastor”……
Here is the link for your “No Girls Allowed” sign. http://www.trimblecrafts.com/item_560/Little-Man-Cave-No-Girls-allowed-except-Mommy-sign-wood.htm
You know I am so tired of this debate. I am so tired of a centuries, years long debate. I think what will happen is that we women will continue to do what we feel God leading us to do, ignoring the whole debate, Owen, Dave C, Randall C, and just pass on by and giving the truth of scripture to others, men or women, regardless of denomination or lack of church attendance, so really aren’t you wasting your breath in all of this?
If you don’t like it then don’t listen, deal with it. We have dealt with it by going ahead and doing, and have the scriptures to back it up regardless of your interpretation. Yep. I think that is what is happening. Notice that Beth Moore is probably getting more church preaching invites than ever, the women’s leadership is launched with a fervor and knowledge of scripture that is awesome among women. This has and is happening now with the blessing and help of the SBC. So watch, look and see the church come back to life as women,
yes women are giving the scriptures as never before.
Amen. The problem with it, though, is that their denominational “support” really means “control” in that they want to make sure the denomination follows their interpretation and not one that they don’t share. So for some, anyway, the denomination has to take sides, theirs, in order for them to support it.
God is blessing and using the ministry of these women, even the ones who cross the Southern Baptist border into the pulpit to exercise their spiritual gift of prophecy, found in scripture, by preaching. I’m not going to judge the fruitful result of a woman’s ministry by whether it followed specific rules based on human interpretation of scripture.
I was a somewhat seasoned pastor (whatever that is) before these terms were popular.. Admission…i had to do research to know what
this was . I have a novel idea. Maybe we could just talk about the Biblical role of women in the church, and mens role, and just not use terms. In addition , how about each local church deciding the issue. Just a little cowboy logic from a Montanan.
Dave…just my way of saying i agree, drop the term.
.
Oops William not Dave