Council for Bibl. Manhood & Womanhood, Dr. Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Owen Strachan, Patriarchal-Complementarian Movement, Russell Moore, Women and the Church

Does Pope Francis’ Use of the Word “Complementarity” Mean the Same as When Used by Owen Strachan or CBMW?

Julie Anne

***

Pope Francis, Owen Strachan and others, discuss “complementarity.”  Does it mean the same to all?

***

Yesterday, Owen Strachan, President of Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), reported on an international colloquium sponsored by Pope Francis who invited leaders from around the world to discuss complimentarity: “Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus are among those representing 14 faith traditions from 23 countries (Source).

From Strachan’s article:

Right now in Rome, the Catholic Church is holding an international colloquium on a very important, and highly controverted, subject: sexual complementarity. The title of the gathering is Humanum Colloquium, “The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium.” The colloquium’s focus is on the institution of marriage . .  .

Strachan continues:

As the President of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, this event warms my heart. I often find that CBMW is a lonely voice promoting complementarity, the idea that the sexes fit together and become one as the fulfillment of our distinctiveness. God created man and woman, not any organization. Procreation depends upon complementarity. The future of the human race depends upon complementarity. If men and women do not come together, they cannot produce children, and humanity will die (Source).

I had to read it twice. In the use of the word complementarity above by Strachan, he seems to be using it in the same way I read in articles from Catholic news sites and from the words of Pope Francis, promoting traditional marriage of man and woman and producing children. I can roll with that.

 

The title that was given this gathering of religious leaders used the word “complementarity.”

Here is the title again:

Humanum Colloquium, “The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium

Let’s read what it says on the website promoting the event:

The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium is a gathering of leaders and scholars from many religions across the globe, to examine and propose anew the beauty of the relationship between the man and the woman, in order to support and reinvigorate marriage and family life for the flourishing of human society.

Witnesses will draw from
 the wisdom of their religious tradition and cultural experience as they attest to the power and vitality of the complementary union of man and woman. It is hoped that the colloquium be a catalyst for creative language and projects, as well as for global solidarity, in the work
 of strengthening the nuptial relationship, both for the good of the spouses themselves and for the good of all who depend upon them.

The Colloquium is sponsored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and co-sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and
 the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (Source).

 ***

medium_100933415 complementarian, owen strachan

But WAIT!

STOP, HOLD ON, WAIT one cotton pickin’ minute!!!!

 

 

Complementarianism is the pet word of Owen Strachan, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and all of the folks who promote and endorse CBMW. Yes, part of the word has to do with husband and wife and producing children as was mentioned both by Strachan in his recent article and the informational summary of the event. But for CBMW, it goes far beyond that:

Is Pope Francis using the word to show husband’s male headship and authority over wives, in extra-biblical terms indicating what women are permitted to do and not permitted to do?  

Does Pope Francis’ meaning of the word complementarity mean that women will be submitting to all men in the new creation (see my article on this topic and note that it is hosted on the CBMW website)?

 Does Pope Francis’ meaning of the word complemtarity mean he is in alignment with Wayne Grudem’s 83 (extra-biblical) rules for women (Wayne Grudem is a co-founder of CBMW)?  

Or is Pope Francis talking about a different kind of complementarity and Strachan is taking advantage of the opportunity to jump on the coattails of this widely publicized and international event to promote a word and teaching he so loves?  

I don’t for a minute think Pope Francis would endorse Wayne Grudem’s 83 extra-Biblical rules for women or the other ideas espoused above. In a large majority of the world, women must work in order to survive. For some in Strachan’s camp, the idea of women working outside the home endorses Feminism.

Folks, Strachan’s article could be very confusing to those who are trying to make sense of “complementarity.”  I’ve searched high and low and can find no indication that Pope Francis endorses the extra-Biblical rules that define the word complementarity in the same way as Strachan and his friends at CBMW.

It would seem that Catholics would understand their pope and the meaning of his words. Take a look at excerpts from the Catholic News Service article,  Pope says defending traditional marriage is matter of ‘human ecology’:

Pope Francis called for preserving the family as an institution based on marriage between a man and a woman, which he said is not a political cause but a matter of “human ecology.”

“The complementarity of man and woman … is at the root of marriage and the family,” the pope said Nov. 17, opening a three-day interreligious conference on traditional marriage. “Children have the right to grow up in a family with a father and mother capable of creating a suitable environment for the child’s development and emotional maturity.”

Pope Francis said that “marriage and the family are in crisis. We now live in a culture of the temporary, in which more and more people are simply giving up on marriage as a public commitment.

You see, Pope Francis is in agreement with CBMW’s foundational issues of marriage: that marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife  (as opposed to same-sex marriage families). He talks about the cheapening of marriage and I think most of us can agree that we have seen lack of commitment in couples to stay married when the going gets tough.

But that’s not the whole of CBMW’s message. In addition to man being married to a woman, they place an emphasis on hierarchy within the home, male headship.  Here’s more from the Catholic News Service so you can see the difference in meaning:

The pope also stressed that the complementarity between male and female does not necessarily entail stereotypical gender roles.

“Let us not confuse (complementarity) with the simplistic idea that all the roles and relations of the two sexes are fixed in a single, static pattern,” he said. “Complementarity will take many forms as each man and woman brings his or her distinctive contributions to their marriage and to the education of their children.”

And there you go. The pope is keeping it defined to solely marriage as husband and wife with gifts, but there is no mention of hierarchy.

Pope Francis said Christians find the meaning of complementarity in St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, “where the apostle tells us that the Spirit has endowed each of us with different gifts so that — just as the human body’s members work together for the good of the whole — everyone’s gifts can work together for the benefit of each.”

That sounds beautiful to me!

“To reflect upon complementarity is nothing less than to ponder the dynamic harmonies at the heart of all creation,” the pope said.

 

Interestingly, Owen Strachan’s friend, Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore, was also invited to attend, and in his article,  Why I’m Going to the Vatican, he explains:

… I am willing to go anywhere, when asked, to bear witness to what we as evangelical Protestants believe about marriage and the gospel, especially in times in which marriage is culturally imperiled. In this colloquium, we come not hiding our distinctives behind some general and abstract faith, but we come to it speaking from our distinct confessional traditions to this issue. It’s an issue I believe God has revealed in the universe around us (Gen. 1-2), and that he has explained in the mystery of Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:32), which is why it is of such importance.

 

 

***

Russell Moore’s speech mostly discussed God creating male and females, and how that design works to further the Gospel, but he did quickly dabble into what he typically endorses, male headship.  You can read his transcribed address here.  But for the most part, it seemed that Moore stuck on track with an agenda of promoting traditional marriage of a husband and a wife.

***

 

Take a look at another Catholic source, Vatican Insider, as they describe complementarity. There’s no hierarchy here, folks, in fact, notice the word mutual:

The union between man and woman is complementary not because it forms a complete whole in itself, but because it illustrate [sic] show both are a mutual support to one another on the path toward the Creator. The birth of a child is the demonstration that this union is not just about the two people in it. The union of two people, the act of becoming one flesh, is expressed through the creation of a child through this union, when two people come together. So complementarity also means abundance, the creation of something new. (Vatican Insider Staff)

Some may wonder if I am attempting to promote Catholicism in this article by defending the Pope and Catholic publications. Not at all. I am pointing out that it’s important to understand meanings of words used in context. This event was sponsored by Catholics who used the word complementarity. If Strachan is going to jump on the bandwagon and report on this important international event where religious leaders from around the world are discussing marriage and complementarity, it’s important that he uses the word in the way in which it was intended. Owen Strachan’s use of the word always includes male headship. As far as I have seen, Pope Francis has not made any mention of hierarchy.

I think Mr. Strachan made an error when writing his article in not clearly identifying that his version of complimentarity does not align with Pope Francis’ use of the word. In fact, because of the word “mutual” above, I’m surprised Mr. Strachan hasn’t spoken out against it. It sure sounds pretty egalitarian to me.

 

Related links:

 

 

photo credit: Aldo Risolvo via photopin cc

127 thoughts on “Does Pope Francis’ Use of the Word “Complementarity” Mean the Same as When Used by Owen Strachan or CBMW?”

  3. Actually, in this case, the phrase is sexual complementarity, which means only that humans come in two sexes and it takes one of each to procreate. So the pope and sbc leaders agree. The goal is to decry homosexual marriage as an oxymoron.

    Like

  4. If they are only addressing that traditional marriage is the only meaning of marriage, which I hate calling it that. Marriage is marriage. One man and one woman coming together to love, cherish, respect and populate the Earth. They are to work together to promote God throughout the world. It is all about creating more believers. Marriage is to represent the relationship between God and his people. He created Adam and Eve and that is the way he intended it. If these guys that believe that man is over the woman in all things and want to promote that message, they are not using this particular conference in the way it was intended. They will probably use it for their own selfish doctrine in some way, but shame on them. I am not Catholic and cannot stand by most of their doctrines, but this one is a good one.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Owen Strachan seems to be a man bereft of original ideas but one who zealously sniffs out the media opportunities and plays them for all they are worth.

    His capacity to state the obvious in grave and sententius tones is cringeworthy.

    “the idea that the sexes fit together and become one as the fulfillment of our distinctiveness. God created man and woman, not any organization. Procreation depends upon complementarity.”

    Gee whiz, thanks Owen. Now I understand. I’m so glad you filled that gap in my knowledge! When I was playing truant on the day they taught about the birds and bees class in high school, I knew that some sage person would fill the gap in my education one day, and now Strachan has done it!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Barbara,
    You are so funny!! Point well taken. It’s amazing that you ever had a child, without this man telling you how it all works!!!

    Like

  7. This is another one of those situations were it seems everyone is wrong so it seems bizarre to take sides.

    Owen is obviously using this to further the CBMW agenda. And I think it is because Pope Francis is popular and making inroads, so they hijack something of his for their own. But of course, it is not a good fit for those who are actually paying attention. While I might cringe a bit at homosexual marriage, I absolutely do not see how we can deny homosexuals civil marriage according to our Bill of Rights.

    So, what do we also do with the fact that Pope Francis is part of an organization that has marginalized women for millenia. Are there female Priests? Bishops? Pope? Was divorce allowed for abuse or did you have to pay the church for an annullment?

    Not only that but they insist on celebacy to be paid by the church in ministry.And there is a LONG history of molestations and homosexuality in the Catholic church priesthood and a LONG history of coverups. It is the dirty no so secret no one wants to talk about anymore. Yes, Francis has mentioned it but has anyone dealt with the root cause for such a proliferation of abuse and sin? Nope.

    If you ask me, which few have btw, I say they are all hypocrites. My question is simply this: After all the INTERNATIONAL dealings with Catholic Priest absues—why does the Catholic church still exist? The answer is: Money and ignorance.

    And the same question goes for even smaller organizations like SGM.

    Like

  8. “His capacity to state the obvious in grave and sententius tones is cringeworthy.

    “the idea that the sexes fit together and become one as the fulfillment of our distinctiveness. God created man and woman, not any organization. Procreation depends upon complementarity.”
    ”

    Hee Hee. But Barb, he is not being honest. He does not think they become “one”. He redefines “one” to mean a pecking order. Just as they made up a word to sound equal but isn’t in their definition.

    And I can see it now. They will start using that word all the time…a variation of the one Piper originally coined with the Danvers Statement. Complementary will become Complementarity.

    Like

  9. Actually, in this case, the phrase is sexual complementarity, which means only that humans come in two sexes and it takes one of each to procreate. So the pope and sbc leaders agree. The goal is to decry homosexual marriage as an oxymoron.

    Right – that is exactly what the pope is talking about. But complementarity, used by Strachan, means that PLUS MORE.

    Like

  10. If all CBMW were about is the fact that it generally takes a woman and a man to make a baby, there wouldn’t be much discussion surrounding that organization. But Mr. Grudem knows his agenda is much broader than mere procreation.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. And now to punch all your Conspiracy Paranoia Party buttons:

    The Colloquium is sponsored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith…

    The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is what used to be called The Inquisition.

    Though these days it works more as an “internal affairs” department in the Church.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. ‘“Let us not confuse (complementarity) with the simplistic idea that all the roles and relations of the two sexes are fixed in a single, static pattern,” he said.’

    Did the Pope just call gender hierarchy simplistic? 🙂

    Wonder how that sat with Strachan.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Took a look at CBMW’s website, and I’m not seeing that CBMW, or even the one column referenced by our hostess, really suggests that women will submit to all men in eternity. Really, the whole idea is contrary to the entire idea of having a head; the Hydra had some trouble against Hercules for this reason in Greek myth, it seems.

    In the same way, Grudem’s list of ministries that he deems fit, or unfit, for a woman to take are merely an attempt to apply what he deems to be Biblical principles–more or less that in the Church, a woman ought not have a position of authority over a man (1 Cor. 11)–to today’s church structures. He would readily admit, and does, that the list is subject to the realities of church polity and such.

    And if you’re going to address this to the Catholics….um, let me get some popcorn before you try and argue that the Catholics don’t believe in hierarchies dominated by men, ’cause that will be just fascinating to watch. OK, all male priesthood with bishops does not support a male hierarchy? Good luck with that argument. With minor quibbles, I’m pretty sure that Rome would affirm the CBMW’s theology statements.

    Really, if one disagrees with the principle of male headship, that’s fine, but it strikes me that one really ought to address the argument CBMW and others are making, not the straw man so readily knocked down here.

    Like

  15. Tim, you’re again using a straw man, and you do it brilliantly on your blog–though I must add it ought to be embarrassing to you personally to expose yourself this way. You take two quotes of Mr. Platt out of context and then go into your own thinking–hardly a fair or honest way to confront his teaching, really.

    I have no trouble with you if you end up disagreeing with complimentarity based on a close reading of the Bible and an honest look at the arguments of CBMW. The trouble is that you’re clearly not doing that. You’re taking quotes out of context and putting the worst possible spin on them.

    Like

  16. I’d be grateful for your help contextualizing the quotes, Bike Bubba, especially the one where he says the gospel is “most clear” in a traditional marriage. He didn’t leave room for it to be clearer in any other context than marriage with that statement. It might have been an unfortunate choice of words for him, but I didn’t rip them from context and put them in a light that means something other than what he meant them to say.

    Like

  18. Bike Bubba said: Took a look at CBMW’s website, and I’m not seeing that CBMW, or even the one column referenced by our hostess,

    Here you go: http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/relationships-and-roles-in-the-new-creation/

    In the same way, Grudem’s list of ministries that he deems fit, or unfit, for a woman to take are merely an attempt to apply what he deems to be Biblical principles–more or less that in the Church, a woman ought not have a position of authority over a man (1 Cor. 11)–to today’s church structures. He would readily admit, and does, that the list is subject to the realities of church polity and such.

    But he’s the co-founder of CBMW. His words are elevated to god-like status by these yahoos. He had no business writing a bunch of opinions about what women can and cannot do. Isn’t it interesting that these guys are so gung ho on limiting what women can do, yet we don’t see any rules for men. Hmmmm

    And if you’re going to address this to the Catholics….um, let me get some popcorn before you try and argue that the Catholics don’t believe in hierarchies dominated by men, ’cause that will be just fascinating to watch.

    Where are you getting the idea that I was addressing this to specifically Catholics?

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Tim, it’s your job, not mine,, to put things into context when you make an argument. Now what is lacking is your analysis, AHEM, is an understanding of how the writer/speaker fleshes out the claim that the Gospel is fleshed out. Now I happen to know how it’s done, but, again, it’s your job to understand his argument when you attack it.

    Nice straw men. Great for bedding for animals, not so hot for an argument.

    Like

  20. BB, I do not think that Tim is misusing those quotes. I think he has done his homework and correctly understands where the CBMW is coming from. You think that there is some distortion and Tim graciously invited you to explain where you think that he has misunderstood. You refuse to do so even though you say you could and again call his argument a straw man. Is there some reason you cannot make your argument here?

    Liked by 2 people

  21. JA: did you not bring the Catholics in with the very title here? You were the one who addressed this specifically to the Catholic Church, writing as if the Pontiff were somehow at serious odds with CBMW.

    That is all the more evident as I read the column you link. It simply makes no such claim, but argues that while some of the details of marriage–e.g. sex–will not exist in Heaven, that certain of the other significance of relationships will exist. It might follow that a Christian couple in Heaven will experience headship, but definitely not that you would be subject to me.

    Now I can quibble that a close analysis of Luke 20 would also point out that the one bride living as an angel would also have trouble submitting to seven men–there’s that Hydra again–and that would be a valid response to the man’s writing. However, to claim it means all women must submit to all men simply doesn’t follow from the column.

    Like

  22. Marsha, the trick is that his argument depends on what it means for marriage to be an important picture of the Gospel. Without the original author’s comment on that–and it’s Tim’s job, not mine, to bring that out–Tim’s argument is a straw man with quotes taken out of context.

    See what I’m getting at here? Tim’s argument is more or less that old cartoon with “and a miracle occurs” in the middle of the mathematics proof.

    Like

  23. BB – the pope and his ilk initiated the conference and invited the guest speakers.That’s the Catholic basis of the post. The whole event on his turf, I think he gets to say a few words to discuss what his agenda is, no?

    Liked by 1 person

  24. I disagree with you, BB. I think the quotes Tim used from Platt do indeed show that Platt is contending that complementarity in marriage is an important part of the Gospel. I went to the link provided by Tim and found this quote from Platt. “We defend sexual complementarity in marriage for the sake of the gospel in the world.”

    It could not be more clear to ME. If you have a different view and think that Platt is NOT saying what seems so evident to Tim and to me, then by all means explain say why.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Well, yes, and so do you, and you did, which is fine. I simply dispute the idea that “submission of all women to all men” is part of what CBMW has ever argued, either in Heaven or on earth, and further I have to suggest that what CBMW actually argues is probably at least 98% consistent with what the Vatican points out.

    And hence the supposed dispute between CBMW (and its officers) and the Pontiff simply isn’t there.

    Like

  26. Marsha; and so he does argue that complimentarity is part of the Gospel, The question is how this is so, and whether it argues the point which Tim makes.

    To make that point, you need a lot more of the original source than Tim provides. Honestly, is “define your terms” that radical of a point to make in a discussion or debate?

    Like

  27. Despite your comment to Tim that ” It ought to be embarrassing to you personally to expose yourself this way” I see no reason for Tim to be embarrassed.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Well, yes, and so do you, and you did, which is fine. I simply dispute the idea that “submission of all women to all men” is part of what CBMW has ever argued, either in Heaven or on earth, and further I have to suggest that what CBMW actually argues is probably at least 98% consistent with what the Vatican points out.

    And hence the supposed dispute between CBMW (and its officers) and the Pontiff simply isn’t there.

    Bike Bubba – who are you addressing this to? I’m lost.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Calvinists have some really unusual fellowship practices. Are the churches these men are from OK with them meeting with the RCC head in this way?

    Like

  36. “Tim says he is a Jesus feminist? Lol.”

    JA, I don’t know if I’ve ever called myself one but I did read Sarah Bessey’s book by that title earlier this year. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  40. I learn so much from Amazon’s book reviews! I was reading the Amazon reviews of the book “Jesus Feminist” that Tim mentioned he read and a review by Bob Edwards caught my attention. It was in response to someone’s shallow review of the book. Bob clearly demonstrates, at least to me, that world views resulted in bad theology from the beginning and why a correction is needed. I’m including just a small snippet of the quotes he includes.

    “[For women] the very consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame.”-Saint Clement of Alexandria, Christian theologian (c150-215) Pedagogues II, 33, 2

    “In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell.” -Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225)

    “Woman is a temple built over a sewer.” -Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225)

    Like

  41. Steve I,

    I was offering Bob Edwards’ book, A God I’d Like to Meet: Separating the Love of God from Harmful Traditional Beliefs, over the weekend for the first 10 people who asked. This is for the Kindle version. If you’d like one, send me an e-mail: spiritualsb@gmail.com Anyone else who’d like in on this offer can also e-mail me – 5 more books to go. (Please be sure to send me the e-mail address you use with Amazon for getting Kindle downloads).

    Here is Greg Hahn’s review:

    The book is a powerful exposé of the progression of ideas from the today’s current Neo-Calvinists- specifically John Piper and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood- and others. Central to the heart of this book is these ideas are not merely erroneous, but unattractive and harmful to the Gospel message

    Specifically addressed are predestination, “death to self”, and the subjugation of women, with a chapter devoted to each. The genesis of these ideas is shown to be from sources other than the Biblical text, and are demonstrated to be anti-Biblical at many points.

    The book is a fairly quick read, but seems thorough and well documented in the material it covers. I found it eye-opening. (Greg Hahn, Amazon.com customer review)

    Like

  42. Someone above said,

    Not only that but they insist on celebacy to be paid by the church in ministry.And there is a LONG history of molestations and homosexuality in the Catholic church priesthood and a LONG history of coverups. It is the dirty no so secret no one wants to talk about anymore. Yes, Francis has mentioned it but has anyone dealt with the root cause for such a proliferation of abuse and sin? Nope.

    Maybe I misunderstood your point, but….

    Celibacy does not cause people to become child molesters.

    I’m over 40, a woman, a virgin (life long celibate, and yes, celibates do indeed have sex drives, contrary to the nonsense Christians teach about adult celibacy), and do not molest children, have never felt attracted to kids, and would never touch one like that.

    Data I’ve seen show that married men (men who are married to women) make up the largest percentage of child molesters, not adults singles, or they are a very large percentage in other studies.

    Source

    He [the pedophile] carries on what can be termed “a special relationship” with a wife.
    Often pedophiles have failed marriages due to their sexual interests but remain in the marriage to mask their true intentions.
    Sadly, the wife sometimes knows about her husband’s preference, but prefers to keep quiet to avoid social stigma and disgrace.

    From a very long page at FRC,
    “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”

    A study in Child Abuse and Neglect found that 48 percent of the [male] offenders either were married or had been married at some time.[43]

    There are other pages out there with similar information.

    There are many news stories of married men, including Christian preachers (and some of these men have biological children), who have been arrested for using or producing child p-rn, molesting kids, etc.

    Being married to an adult does not keep men from preying on children. Some of these pedos even have regular sex with their adult wives, and they still molest children.

    Like

  43. Tim said,

    If all CBMW were about is the fact that it generally takes a woman and a man to make a baby, there wouldn’t be much discussion surrounding that organization. But Mr. Grudem knows his agenda is much broader than mere procreation.

    And what do they do with married couples who either decide against having children (which is fine; the ‘be fruitful’ verse is not carried over into New Testament times), or with infertile couples?

    I don’t in general support homosexuality, but – I don’t understand the penchant by some Christians to defend “traditional” marriage by using the procreation argument. Not every hetero (“traditional”) marriage can or will end in procreation.

    There are some hetero couples who cannot or do not want to have children, and I don’t see many Christians arguing that such couples have “fake” or “unbiblical” marriages,
    (though God knows they do try to shame couples who don’t have kids, especially the ones who do not want to have any.
    There are Christians who place so much emphasis on natalism as a required component for marriages, they are probably chomping at the bit to declare even hetero, infertile/ child free marriages as in-valid, or sinful as well.)

    Like

  44. Bike B said,
    “Well, yes, and so do you, and you did, which is fine. I simply dispute the idea that “submission of all women to all men” is part of what CBMW has ever argued,”

    I don’t know about the particular author under discussion, but I have regularly visited blogs that routinely cover whatever nonsense gender complementarians such as or similar to CBMW are discussing, and some of them have or do teach that all women must be subordinate to the entire male gender in heaven.

    Some believe all women today, even Non Christian ones, should submit to all men, even in secular life (the nuts in Reconstructionism).

    As I’ve often remarked, adherents of gender complementarianism (especially the figure heads of the movement, the guys who blog about the issue, hold conferences, etc) spend about, oh, 97% of their time pontificating about MARRIED MOTHERS.

    They may spend about 3.5% of the remainder shaming and scolding young men for supposedly sitting in their boxers playing X-box and screaming at them to get full time jobs and to hurry up and marry.

    They spend .5% or less of their time and content talking to or about un-married, childless adults. They are not concerned with biblical manhood and womanhood, because if they were, they would be devoting equal time, or much more time, to addressing celibate, single, childless adults, as well as widows and the divorced.

    But no. Most all gender complementarian energy is spent yakking about why they think feminism is awful for talking women out of marrying at age 22 and popping out ten children like in the good ol’ days (as though feminism is to blame for this, which I submit it is not. And no, I’m not a secular feminist myself).

    Bike B said,

    “And hence the supposed dispute between CBMW (and its officers) and the Pontiff simply isn’t there.”

    I don’t think Julie Anne was claiming there was one, but that maybe her point was merely that the Pope doesn’t define or use the word “complementary” the same way the sexist doofi at CBMW do?

    I’d say that the Roman Catholic Church does believe in male hierarchy, as do the folks at CBMW, but the Pope was probably using the word “complementary” differently from how CBMW talking heads assume he was.

    Like

  45. Earlier I said,
    “They may spend about 3.5% of the remainder…”

    Oh shoot, I think my math was slightly off, and that should have read “2.5,” along with the other .5, would, with the 97 equal 100?

    Like

  46. Come to think of it…

    Bike B said,

    “Well, yes, and so do you, and you did, which is fine. I simply dispute the idea that “submission of all women to all men” is part of what CBMW has ever argued”

    Maybe I’m getting my sites mixed up, but didn’t CBMW at one point host an editorial by some author who did in fact argue as such, and they later pulled that editorial?

    Yes, Julie Anne discussed this a few months ago:

    Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Removes Article about Complementarian Roles in New Creation

    At some time, CBMW was hosting an article that said that women would be subordinate to men in the afterlife, but then they yanked it from their site after much fury and many comparisons to Mormons.

    Like

  47. Julie Anne and Tim: I got the “Jesus Feminist” from a look at Tim’s Facebook. I thought this was a new -ism and did not know it was a book. Thus I apologise.

    What is a feminist? There are so many definitions out there as to leave me bewildered.

    Tim: I take it you are a pastor?

    Like

  49. “Woman is a temple built over a sewer.” -Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225)

    This guy has misogynist written all over him.

    Like

  50. Daisy, I believe it was Strachan who claimed there was a computer glitch – that they never removed the article. It’s still there on the CBMW site. I posted the link further up.

    Like

  53. Tim: I thought ISTJ was the most common amongst the judiciary. Oh, and I don’t think being a judge really tells me much, and I am certainly not intimidated by it.

    Like

  54. Also, Ns can be pretty frustrating, they don’t follow directions and are always intuiting their way through things. I have some Ns in my household.

    Like

  55. Keith, no one’s trying to intimidate anyone. You asked about me, but I’m not sure what it is you want to know. Read through my blog posts if you want to know what I think is important. Perhaps my salvation story is a good place to start.

    Like

  56. We are now in the Twilight Zone. Tim writes an accurate post and is accused of setting up a straw man. Then he is asked if he is a pastor and he indicates that he is a judge and gets accused of trying to be intimidating.

    Liked by 2 people

  57. Marsha: I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with Tim. No twilight zone intended
    Tim: Again, I am asking re: your theological views, Biblical study etc. You are the one who brought in “What i do for a living”. That does not seem to me to be relevant to anything that is being discussed. I know pastors who are farmers, LEOs, etc. When I talk theology with them they don’t say “Well, I am the Chief Deputy for Page County or something”. You could be the ghost of Earl Warren, but it doesn’t really help me to understand your views. Even the link to your salvation story does not really help. i have never been an atheist, never been to England, don’t like California, and still can’t figure out what is has to do with my question.

    Like

  59. Keith, I didn’t realize your question “Tim: I take it you are a pastor?” was asking me for my theology. I thought you were only asking if pastoring a church was part of what I do. The answer, as you can see, is that I am not a pastor.

    As for my theology, I’ve written hundreds of posts at my blog covering a multitude of theological subjects such as trinitarianism and pneumatology, complementarianism and egalitarianism, spiritual gifts and legalism, and more that don’t come to mind right now.

    Tell me which doctrine you’re interested in my position on and I’ll try to find a link for you. Or you could just go to my blog and search for a subject and read about it there, and that way we won’t be cluttering up Julie Anne’s comment section.

    Like

  60. OK, I want to talk about Owen. Can I divert the subject back there? 🙂 (Besides, Keith, I don’t know Tim, but I do think that you need to be careful re: projecting your feelings (intimidation) onto Tim. Sure seems to me that is how your comment reads.

    Sweet as it may be that Owen’s heart is “warmed” by all the complementarian/complementarity talk by the pope, unfortunately his warmed heart would be in a cold, dead shock if he knew how the RCC viewed mothers (with children at home) in the work force-which, btw, is quite positively. That’s a big issue with Owen, as you brought up in your post, JA.

    I know that it is hard to nail down these CBMW complementarians in their beliefs-what with the varying rules we see about what can and cannot be done by wives with children in the home, but Owen says no work…stay in the home…yet others that post on the CBMW site say it’s ok to work. Oh…make up your minds- you spiritual leader/headships of the home, ok? Submissive wives need to know…

    Liked by 2 people

  61. Well, shoot, Tim, don’t be a party pooper. All school is canceled due to ice (for both my kids and me).

    I might just kick back and enjoy this exchange with some yummy hot apple cider and popcorn (flavored with butter/brown sugar/cinnamon). This is quite entertaining.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. Diane said “I do think that you need to be careful re: projecting your feelings (intimidation) onto Tim. Sure seems to me that is how your comment reads.”

    Phew! It’s not just me!

    Liked by 1 person

  64. I am a sociologist, an INFJ, a Christian, an Arminian, and a left wing progressive; I pretty much agree with NT Wright, and unfortunately I don’t think I intimidate anyone.

    Like

  66. Diane – you are exactly right. Part of my childhood we were practicing Catholics. I went 4 years and graduated from a Catholic HS and was very active in the Church from 5th grade on up. While I was in the church, there was a noticeable change towards women. When I was a child, there were only altar boys. That changed before I turned 10 and now we were seeing girls as alter girls. We then saw the switch allowing women to serve communion, read the readings/responsorial Psalms. Women were teaching CCD classes. While priests have always been males, I went to a Christian Brother high school and the brothers were no higher up on the totem pole than nuns. Working women were equally respected as stay at home moms. The key issues for women were: birth control and producing babies.

    That’s why I suggested towards the end of the post that with so many strong differences in roles of women, overall, Strachan and CBMW would be in strong disagreement with the RCC in most areas regarding gender roles. The primary thing they have in common is the belief that the penis belongs in the vagina for husbands and wives with the intent of procreating.

    A side note: I think that Catholics would lead the way over Protestants in endorsing procreation (except maybe for the fundy full quiver crowd which actually used to refer to some Catholic literature to promote full quiver ideology) – and especially with regard to their stance on birth control.

    Like

  67. Intimidate no, encourage yes, Marsha.

    That is so much more important. I can’t even intimidate my cat, so I’ll leave the rest of my bio out of it.

    Like

  69. Marsha, I really would like to take that test. I have no idea what I am. I have been told by several men (some you would recognize) that I intimidate them. That kind of cracks me up because how is it intimidating to have your own words put back at you when you said them? Anyway, if I’m intimidating bullies, so be it.

    But I really hope I don’t intimidate strangers who meet me for the first time (I acknowledge that sometimes my 6ft+ height is initially intimidating – nothing I can do about that).

    Like

  71. I be software developer and you should be afraid …. very, very afraid.

    Wait, I thought I was on the Assassin’s Creed forum. Sorry.

    I have been accused in the past of hacking into other members computers but it was not me. Honestly. I am just a simple mild-mannered Christian progressive conservative and NOT the God-less Nazi I have been accused of being in other forums.

    Like

  73. Steve, I’m keeping my eye on you. I’m slowly working towards a Cyber Security degree. Part of the interest came when I noticed activity compromising my site (in addition to my former suing pastor buying domain names phishing using my former blog’s name). Yes, spiritual bullies really do not like me.

    Like

  74. Google Meyers-Briggs Personality test. The HumanMetrics site should come up early in the search results. It has a short form of the test which is pretty accurate all the same and it is free.

    Like

  75. I am an ISTJ, my wife is ENFJ, my eldest son is INFP…MBTI is as fun as the chinese zodiac, and almost as accurate. It derives from the Greek concept of humors, through Jung to Meyers etc. i think.

    Like

  76. “Mothers in the Workplace: A Catholic Perspective

    Saturday, 15 May 2010 00:00

    The are many studies regarding women in the workplace, and peo­ple certainly have different opinions regarding the role of women as workers and mothers, but what does the Catholic Church have to say? Are women supposed to stay home or work outside the home?

    In the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collabo­ration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World, then Prefect Joseph Ratzinger addressed this question. He explained that “…what John Paul II has termed the genius of women….implies first of all that women be significantly and actively present in the fam­ily….” He goes on to say “It also means that women should be pres­ent in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.” In the same letter, he also reaffirmed the value of a mother’s work in the home, and the teaching that women who want to be stay at home mothers should be able to do so without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially.

    Indeed, a just valuing of the work of women within the family is re­quired. In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially, while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work-schedule, and not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress….

    In other words, mothers should be active in their family, but they should also be to influence society through their work. Individually and as a society, we should support mothers who choose to stay at home, and we should also support mothers who choose to work outside the home.”
    http://www.misacor-usa.org/index.php/mothers-in-the-workplace-a-catholic-perspective

    This was from Ratzinger, who is still a pope (kind of), right? Pope emeritus? Second in command pope? Retired pope? I don’t know what he officially is now. But he was conservative and thought this of mothers with children at home:

    “…and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems…”

    But wouldn’t that mean they might have authoriteeeeeeeeeeeeeee over men?

    Liked by 1 person

  77. “Diane: Projection? You win! All y’all win…”

    I’m glad you can see it. We all have a tendency to do it.

    Like

  78. Diane: No, that was not a concession. I just did not see how being a judge was relevant to my question.

    Like

  79. Keith, if you ask me if I am a pastor, I am going to say no, I am a sociologist. I am not going to say no, but let me tell you about my theology. Can’t you see how confusing your communication was?

    Liked by 2 people

  81. The only creds I have are SAHM. Maybe I should take that test and add some more alphabet after my name.

    Like

  82. @ Keith-
    Oh… dang it. Ok…then I guess one could have asked Tim…hey Tim, how is being a judge relevant to my question sans the *I am not intimidated* part (which inferred you thought he may be trying to intimidate you with his occupation which was an assumption on your part–or a projection–or both).

    Liked by 1 person

  83. Speaking of intimidation, no one intimidates quite like a cardiac surgeon coming onto the floor for rounds only to find half his patients gone for tests, lab results not in and or consent forms not signed b/c s/he has not done the H&P……….fun times.

    Like

  85. Keith, I don’t know why you are being so antagonistic. I just didn’t understand your initial question is all. Ask what you like and I’ll try to respond as best I can, truly.

    Liked by 1 person

  86. My perception is that you and Diane are being antagonistic to me. But I happen to be working on a particularly difficult sex abuse today, judge, so it might be bleeding over. So how about just leaving me alone.

    Like

  87. My apologies for any words I said that were antagonistic, Keith. I’m praying for what you’re dealing with today.

    P.S. Please just call me, Tim.

    Like

  88. @JulieAnne:

    Marsha, I really would like to take that test. I have no idea what I am. I have been told by several men (some you would recognize) that I intimidate them.

    If I remember right, you’re taller than most men. That might be a factor (it sure is with Piper Flutterhands and “Muscular Women”). And if you have a strong personality, especially if you’re riled up over something…

    Liked by 1 person

  89. @Marsha:

    We are now in the Twilight Zone. Tim writes an accurate post and is accused of setting up a straw man. Then he is asked if he is a pastor and he indicates that he is a judge and gets accused of trying to be intimidating.

    Like

  96. “Maybe I misunderstood your point, but….

    Celibacy does not cause people to become child molesters.”

    Yes, you misunderstood and I am sorry if I offended you. We have to admit there has been a LONG history of molestations by priests in the Catholic church. The amount is staggering. So, the question is what is the root cause of such prolonged and prolific heinous evil by those who have pledged their lives to God? And why was it accepted as an institutionalized practice by simply moving the priests around or totally ignoring it?

    I realize that many simply think it is just sinners being sinners but I think that attitude hurts people too much to accept it. Was it the perceived power and piousness that they took advantage of? My point in bringing up celebacy is that it is required and if that plays into it all? I don’t know. I realize celebacy has nothing to do with child molestations but I am focusing on solely on the Catholic church as an organization where the instances of child molestation were staggeringly huge and over a period of many years. I am focusing on their requirements for ministry as a priest. It came off as an accepted but secret practice within the organization. Until people talked.

    If we cannot discuss root causes of institutionalized evil then we might as well give it up.

    Like

  97. “Marsha, I really would like to take that test. I have no idea what I am. I have been told by several men (some you would recognize) that I intimidate them”

    Try Typefocus.com Your college might use it and if so, will have an access code.

    I am a certified MBTI facilitator. I rarely use it anymore but it is fun and has its uses. I always warned my clients upfront that there is a good probability that Mother Theresa and Hitler had the same type indicators. That puts its usage into perspective.

    Women who are strong T’s might intimidate men. That is because last I studied the stats about 16 years ago, about 75% of women scored as strong “F’s”. And about 75% of men score as strong T’s. So you can imagine how that plays out. A women scoring as a strong T is going to be different. I personally think those scores reflected a cultural norm and not biology. We are “trained” in how to think and make decisions. It would be interesting to see if those percentages have changed. I bet they have.

    Like

  98. “Well, yes, and so do you, and you did, which is fine. I simply dispute the idea that “submission of all women to all men” is part of what CBMW has ever argued”

    Oh dear. It is actually worse than that. There was actually an article up for years trying to make the case that women will be submitting to men for eternity. Very Mormon.

    That article became such a cause for ridicule on many blogs that when they revamped the CBMW site, it disappeared.

    Oh and they are desperately trying to revamp their image. Whether or not they continue to put forth the idea that ALL women submit to ALL men is moot. The larger point is they believe women are a lower caste than men. They use the same logic used in the South during segregation: Separate but equal. They say equal but different. Well duh. But what they really mean is that the differences means the women has to be in subjection. She is “spiritually” equal (not really when you strip away all the flowery verbosity) as far as salvation but not in sanctification.

    Many of the Gospel Glitteraiti at CBMW (thanks to Gram) teach that “Woman is the derivative image of God and man the direct image”. A few years back there were over 1000 comments on Denny Burks blog (former CBMW director) about this very teaching.

    I have no idea what your beliefs are about women in this regard. My guess is you have either not done your homework on CBMW or agree with them. There is no middle ground. We are either FULL heirs of all Christ offered or not.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. Lydia,
    Child molesters and abusers go where they can have access to those whom they can control. Clergy, police officers, teachers etc. No one suspects them and usually the victim/target is not believed. Who would believe that this nice helping, giving person would do such a thing????? They are wolves that devour sheep, but their zippers are beginning to be caught and their real selves peak through. The more the word spreads the more who will be caught in their webs of deceit.

    Liked by 1 person

  101. Keith, you asked for a definition of a ‘feminist’.

    A Definition of Feminism:

    Contributors to this book jointly determined that, “A feminist is a person of either sex who works to restore social, economic, and political justice between women and men in a given society. This work is motivated by the conviction that the devaluation of women and their activities as compared with the valuation of men and their activities is wrong, and that the systematic disempowering of women in relation to men is unjust.”

    Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, et al., “After Eden: Facing the Challenge of Gender Reconciliation” (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993), 22.

    I hope that helps.

    Liked by 1 person

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)