Are We Creating a Strawman out of Complementarianism? We Respond to Critics Episode 227
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- So many people resist admitting that they are actually egalitarians, because they think they have to be complementarian--even if they don't act like it. Today Sheila and her husband Keith dissect the arguments that are often used to say "we're really complementarian"--even when they're objectively not. And we invite people instead to preach what they practice. Episode 227 of the Bare Marriage podcast.
TO SUPPORT US:
Join our Patreon for as little as $5 a month to support our work
/ baremarriage
For tax deductible donations in the U.S., support Good Fruit Faith Initiative through the Bosko Foundation
secure.qgiv.co...
And check out our Merch, or any of our courses!
sheilawraygreg...
THINGS MENTIONED IN THE PODCAST:
The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's statement
cbmw.org/2007/...
Our podcast with Nancy Pearcey where we explain how complementarians act as egalitarians
baremarriage.c...
The interview with Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth and Robert Wolgemuth
• Harvest Show Interview...
The Great Sex Rescue, with our findings about decision-making
baremarriage.c...
Rebecca Groothuis' article about equality
christianethic...
Jonathan Leeman's article (and video) about a husband's authority
www.crossway.o...
RESOURCES ABOUT THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS FOR EQUALITY:
Marg Mowczko's site--amazing short articles on virtually every bible passage about gender.
margmowczko.com
Our podcast with Philip Payne, and his book The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood
baremarriage.c...
amzn.to/3V82oIq
Terran Williams' book How God Sees Women
amzn.to/4a1ig3v
Terran Williams' series refuting Mike Winger's videos
terranwilliams...
Our podcast on Ephesians 5:
baremarriage.c...
Our podcast with Terran Williams:
baremarriage.c...
Our podcast with Julie Coleman:
baremarriage.c...
Julie Zine Coleman's book On Purpose
amzn.to/3Tss29v
FUTURE SPEAKING EVENTS:
Grand Rapids, MI: Sheila and Rebecca will be at Calvin University on March 13 and 14 . March 13 at 4:30; March 13 at 7 pm for a panel discussion; and March 14 at 7 pm. More details here.
baremarriage.c...
Belleville, ON: St. Thomas Anglican Church in Belleville, Ontario is throwing a party for us to celebrate The Great Sex Rescue and She Deserves Better! March 23, 2:30-4:30 pm. Q&A, crafts with toxic books, and more.
“The opposite of patriarchy is not egalitarianism but matriarchy. Egalitarianism is in the middle”
I LOVE that!!!! I will be using g that in my series for my church!
Thank you Sheila and Keith!!
31:22 Also, an employee a) voluntarily applies for the job, b) gets paid an equitable rate for the work they do, c) the job description is clear & consise and not based on the employer's "beliefs" or whims, d) can ask for a raise or improve their work environment through negotiating, e) can get promoted in the business or transfer locations, f) can file complaints and reports on their employer through HR or a higher authority in the company, AND g) can QUIT IF THEY WANT TO.
Well, in theory. In practice, many people apply for jobs because they don't have many choices, are paid much less than they are worth, don't have much room to negotiate because they're easy to replace, are forced to take on tasks that weren't in their job description, have little room for upward mobility, don't have anyone to report complaints to (or fear repercussions if their boss finds out that they complained about him/her), and are stuck working a job they hate because their options and their financial flexibility are limited. (This is especially a problem in the U.S., where many people are opposed to anything they deem "socialist" or "breeding entitled." And yes, there's a sizable overlap between these people and complementarians.)
And we can't forget that the law protects the hirees/employees from discrimination from positions based on sex, ma'am. I think that's the real ticket item 😅; cuz that employer could literally be sued or shut down if found to have one or repeated instances of sex-based discrimination violations.
12:46 Just an FYI for those who don't know the imagery: A motte-and-bailey is a castle design. The motte is a keep, or fortified tower, situated on high ground, while a bailey is a large courtyard surrounded by a defensive wall. The idea is that the outer wall is a first line of defense that can hold off small-scale raids or the initial stages of a siege, but if it is breached, then a retreat can be made from the bailey into the more heavily fortified motte.
When Nancy says in such a sweet voice, “Some of you are in difficult marriages...” I’ve never been married but I felt like that comment really was insensitive and dismissive towards women or men in abusive marriages. Like get over it! It’s nice she feels that she married someone loving but it’s a great disservice to those who are being abused to just encourage them to “keep submitting when it’s hard.”
The phrase that he values her input sounds like: "Be glad that I actually stoop so low as to consider a woman's thoughts at all, when I don't have to because I'm the King here anyway". So that woman only gets a voice because her husband allows it.
It reminds me of the comment of an ex boyfriend of a friend of mine. She was physically abused by her father and her ex husband. The then-boyfriend told her to be glad that he doesn't beat her like those other men did - as if she deserved it! Those are exactly the vibes I get from the quoted comment in this video. It gives me the creeps.
Sheila & Keith - it’s so wonderful seeing your marriage (and emotional health) in action. I enjoy and learn from you both!
When a wife is put in the position of being a child to her husband, one of the effects it has is that it it messes with intimacy! No wife wants to sleep with her dad and no husband wants to sleep with his mom. Being able to have intimacy with an equal partner is incredible!❤
It’s doubly weird when both halves are put into “parenting” mode. Despite being the “authority”, it seems in a large portion of these dynamics, the husband becomes just one more “kid” for his wife to pick up after. There’s a strong “ick” factor in both iterations.
I think there are 2 kinds of complementarians- the kind that love the power, and the kind that really do feel like it's a burden (because it literally makes marriage harder by robbing intimacy and makes it feel like both parties constantly need to be STRIVING to ideally fill these leadership/submission roles as perfectly as possible) but do it anyway because they feel like questioning it means questioning God.
I never understood the tie-breaker argument. How can it be, if one person always makes the decisions, and the other person doesn't? Sounds like there's not really a tie.
Also confusing to me: when we agree, I get my way, when we disagree, I get my way.
How is this not just the husband rules?
@@HJM0409 I attend a church full of women who would say this is how a marriage should be, but I am not sure if it is exactly how they live out their relationships.
And what about juries? When the 12 jurors can't agree of the party is guilty or innocent, does one juror get tie breaking authority?
My husband and I are egalitarians and sometimes we can't agree. Guess what we do? We wait a little while and then revisit the subject, and agree on a temporary way forward until we can resolve the disagreement.
Then we can back together and rediscuss (sometimes armed with new thoughts or information). And since we're both reasonable, intelligent people and since neither of us hears the LITERAL VOICE of God, we come to the best approach together. In a healthy marriage where neither person is abusive, you should be able to come to an agreement eventually because you both value the truth and are capable of listening and thinking. Or the opposite: neither of you is smart and so you need to take extra care in decision making to reign in your ignorance.
And seriously, do they really think that marriage is a parenting arrangement, with the wife as child? Or a transactional contract, with the wife as employee? What nastiness is this?
Bless you!! This comment is so spot on!! ❤
I think there’s some truth to the (subconscious or otherwise) perception of it being transactional contract. Historically, most marriages were at their core socio-economic arrangements. I think societally we’re struggling to shake that. (Heck, on the other side of the philosophical aisle you have those who are essentially monogamous but refuse to get married because they view marriage itself as strictly an unnecessary economic contract.)
Sounds like "No true Scottsman". One of the big arguments I see in public is people don't agree on definitions. Probably best to just identify specific behaviors.
I would really LOVE to see a conversation about this between pastor Mike Winger and one or both of you. He's overall a very reasonable and very studious Christian, but I somehow get the sense that you two are right about this issue. I think it would be enlightening to see how both parties would address the others' perspectives on complementarianism vs egalitarianism.
In 14 years with my ex, there was only one time that he asked my opinion on some thing, and then ignored that opinion. Then things blew up. He would always complain about. He had to always make the decisions and the weight that he carried doing that, but at the same time he wouldn't let me be a part of the decision making. The whole thing was so messed up!
My ex HAAATED making decisions. I had to make decisions, but he would invariably criticize them. It was infuriating.
"It's so hard for me to wield this power all to myself! Oppressing you is so draining on my energy 😔"
“No true Scotsman!” Here we go round again…
The Bible tells us to look at the fruit, and when Egalitarians do just that, Complementarians tell us to look elsewhere.
And the comment about girls being raised Comp, but marrying abusers hits hard, & close to home. Because as it turns out, preaching that women are to submit & serve cheerfully to a mere man as unto the Lord, and preaching that sinful husbands are like sinless Christ to their wife, and that the only repercussions for his potential sin, stupidity, & cruelty is some very nebulous "more responsibility" someday - actually *attracts* wolves into the fold! And as it turns out Saffira does in fact have the same fate as Annanias.
I have so many thoughts on the “men have it so hard bearing the burden of the consequences of the final decision-making”.
First off … if you’re making good decisions, what burden of consequences are you talking about?
Secondly, all good leaders know everyone under their care bears the consequences of bad decisions you make. 💀
Thirdly, when God created Eve to be Adam’s “helper”, the only work he (and subsequently, they) had to do was learning how to be the bridge between physical and spiritual realms (in other words, to be human). There was no laundry to be done, no house to clean or repair, no children to tend … and the food was always “ready to pick”-no cooking necessary. What domestics do people really think Adam needed “help” with?
Oh this is such a good point about Adam and Eve! Thank you.
After leading a teaching on missions for a weekend outreach, a Lutheran pastor told me 'women should be silent'. Yes, it did hurt and was very confusing.
Well this dropped at the perfect time in the light of Winger's final video in his current series. Thanks Sheila!
@@MommaLoo Absolutely. I'm pretty sure he's wrong on his roles on marriage but it's clear to me that he really cares about the Truth and genuinely seeks to discover where the evidence leads. Hopefully he'll have a discussion with the Gregoires about this, and maybe change his mind
A former pastor counseled my ex husband and I. He used to say "Submission is ducking so God can punch him in the face." So, the picture is, by submitting to him, i am relinguishing accountability for the outcome. Obviously this isn't biblical. Even though i couldn't actually argue it then, i knew it didn't feel right.
Have you done a study in which you measure whether a man grows up with a sister is more likely to be egalitarian because they are exposed to one of the few male/female relationships in which there is true equality? I think Im egalitarian primarily because I grew up with two sisters aside from (later) reading the Bible and seeing egalitarianism all over scripture.
That would be really interesting! I'm sure there's stuff in the literature about that. I'll look it up. But, yes, I would think that hypothesis makes sense.
I would describe myself as a reluctant complementarian, and I've been binge watching many of your videos, and find myself agreeing with everything you say. Do you guys have any good online exegesis resources you'd recommend on egalitarianism? I've tried reading some before but I wasn't convinced egalitarianism was biblical at all. But the fact that I feel so strongly against it is making me wonder if I'm wrong and I haven't looked deeply enough, because I've felt this way before with other issues and ended up finding very strong scriptural cases for them.
For sure! Philip Payne's The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood is really good, and he's a Greek scholar who has actually worked with the original manuscripts. Terran Williams' How God Sees Women is excellent. Marg Mowczko's website is really good if you want bite sized articles about specific passages! Keep asking questions!
@@SheilaWrayGregoireThanks very much, I'll give them a read :)
(not this channel)
you wrote:
Do you guys have any good online exegesis resources you'd recommend on egalitarianism?
The place to start is with Deborah (the Judge).
Free essay, read time: 12 minutes
It can be posted up.
Which podcast is the one referencing Elisabeth Elliot?
It was two weeks ago--Do You Even Want This Kind of Marriage, episode 225. baremarriage.com/2024/02/podcast-do-you-even-want-this-kind-of-marriage/
@@SheilaWrayGregoire Thank you!
I love your podcast but it seems Keith was downgrading the Bible. Using biblical METAPHORS to make God's Word look unscientific seemed unkind to God's Word
I've never done this before but I really want to figure out how and do it! Would y'all mind if I created a bunch of clips from these podcasts and posted it to Instagram? Assuming its possible? Lol im not tech savvy but my husband is!
Absolutely! We're trying to figure out how to do that! Tag me if you do on Instagram--@sheilagregoire
@@SheilaWrayGregoire ok I will!
@@SheilaWrayGregoire so we both played with trying to get a way to do it and I think we've found a way. It's just going to take time and a quiet environment!(2 kids under 5) The secret might be to screen record the clip of the podcast. Because then we can download and save it. Apparently clips are harder to deal with themselves! I hope that helps you with it too!
I'm going to be honest... I'm an egalitarian, so I agree with your perspective (mostly... obviously everyone works works this out with different nuances). In this video, however, you are constantly using straw man argumentation. On the one hand, you point out a couple of logical fallacies commonly used by evangelical complementarians. Nice. Helpful. But on the other hand, you play into the whole problem by committing several of your own straw-men arguments, basically proving their point. Almost every time you read from one of your opponents, you immediately re-state their perspective in a more radical way, making it easy to scoff at. Example (one of many): one of the points made by Grudem and Piper is that the role of a man can be a burden, because it includes not only decision making, but the responsibility for having made those decisions. The reasoning of this is pretty simple: being in a position of authority comes with matching responsibility and accountability if things go poorly. That is just a necessary ramification of having more decision-making power (Again, as an egalitarian, I don't like thinking about marriage in this imbalanced way, but that is their perspective).
After reading this, you immediately re-state their perspective in unrecognizable form: "What they are saying is that it is 'unfair' for us men, but we have to keep it that way." - and then you ridicule them for such a silly perspective: if it is unfair, why does it have to be that way?! -- This is a straw man: Gruden and Piper would NOT say this is unfair. They would say there are different roles with different challenges and opportunities, and that the best way to inhabit these roles is to conform to God's pattern. One more time: I STRONGLY disagree with them, but this is their perspective.
I thought a lot of your critiques were really valid and helpful. One of the most important points is the ways that complementarian ideas perpetuate abuse. But please stop with the straw-manning. It will not help in this dialogue.
This is the best and most well thought out comment from someone that seems to really understand what straw-manning is . Thank you for this.
In the beginning of the podcast when she was talking about the only difference “[she] can think of” between the two stances is authority was very telling.
If that is the only difference that one can think of, then I suggest going back to the drawing board and thinking harder.
None of the things you described are strawman arguments. A strawman is when someone misrepresents the opponent's position, making it seem like they said something they didn’t. Her remarks about complementarian men, particularly their tendency to claim that they are the ones truly burdened while disingenuously denying any harm or oppression they impose on women, are not strawman arguments. Instead, they are an evaluation of these men's actions in light of what they claim, especially since they often vehemently defend and seek out submissive wives.
Moreover, you overlooked the part where she addressed the other aspect of their claim about bearing responsibility. But how and when do they actually bear it? How are their wives less affected by their poor decisions, if not even more so, given that the men have the choice to consider how their decisions would affect themselves, unlike the wife?
You're pointing out that the critique seems to be nitpicking the meaning of "fair" in this context. What the person is really saying is that complementarian men often insinuate that it's the husband who is getting the raw deal in the relationship. Whether you label it as unfair, unbalanced, or incorrect, the underlying message remains the same: these men claim that they are somehow at a disadvantage, even though the reality might suggest otherwise.
@@Peepoo42069She thoroughly examined every difference claimed by complementarianism, and none of them were found to be exclusive thier system or even consistently practiced. For instance, they say they value women, but how can that be true when women lack autonomy within their belief system? Much of what complementarians claim to value seems like lip service , with little evidence of it being reflected in practical reality.
They Both Got Zinged! Put it on the Merch😊
I disagree that complementarianism is patriarchy. It’s possible to believe the husband should lead and still believe we should make decisions together. On the far end of the spectrum (patriarchy) women are not as valuable as men and men make most of the decisions. There is a big difference between the two positions. It makes me feel like I'm in between egalitarian and complimentarian because I still believe it's okay to follow my husband's lead and yeah there is a different flavor to him leading than me sharing/teaching/deciding with him. So there is mutual submission, but he is still the leader in the relationship. This isn't because he takes that authority, but because that feels like the natural order of things.
Egalitarians also are allowed to follow the husbands lead. Your marriage, according to your description, only differs from Egal in that you expect your husband to take more responsibility before God than you. But we don’t see that well-exampled in the Bible.
Other distinctions between Patriarchy & Comp is just marketing: "We coined the term “complementarian” as a one-word representation of our viewpoint" - Wayne Grudem
But as it happened, Russel Moore disagreed: "I hate the word complementarianism. I prefer patriarchy . . .”
Except Andreas Köstenberger argued that “patriarchy” has too many negative connotations due to "feminist propaganda." (IOW: I DO agree w the term Patriarchy, but those darn Feminists spoiled it for us!)
So yes: Complementarian IS Patriarchy, despite what you are saying. The conversation was mostly over 20 years ago, per the men who settled (sulkily in some cases) on the term Complementarian.
It's contradictory to believe that your husband should lead and make all the final decisions while also thinking that you're making decisions together. In reality, you're not-you're either agreeing with him or simply going along with what he decides, which means you're not truly making decisions.
Patriarchy is about men having power and authority over women, and that's exactly what complementarianism embodies, no matter how it's framed with neutral or softened language.
If you believe that should always hold an inferior role simply because of your sex, you’re upholding the same reasoning on which patriarchy was built: male superiority and female inferiority.