A Rotten Foundation-Why *That Article Shouldn’t Have Surprised Us
*Content warning for explicit language in this post*
“Equal but different” is most often followed by a non sequitur.
At least in the ways I have seen it used.
To say we are equal but then go on to describe our differences in ways that mean we aren’t actually equal, is to then invalidate the phrase “equal but different”.
It really is ok to say we are equal without then following it up with “but….…”
Yes, God made men and women different, and we are not the same. But our physical differences aside, we are equally the image of God, given the command to rule over the earth, equally sinners (and I cannot be convinced that there are pink and blue sins….), equally in need of redemption and God’s grace, and equally coheirs of the kingdom, and (*gasp*) equally sexual beings. Men can nurture and women can provide, women lust and men can gossip. Our differences are truly not all based on our gender but on our unique, God given personalities. The Bible doesn’t spend time really discussing our differences as much as our equality.
The constant phrase of “equal but different” is, in all practicality, meaningless. While I absolutely affirm gender differences, I get tired of the rhetoric that “equal but different” implies: “Sure, we are equal, but we sin different (and men can’t really help it), have different roles, different strengths and weaknesses (besides physical), and they all have to do with our genders and not our individuality”.
So, in practicality, this teaching also leads to the implication or even explicit teaching of “pink” and “blue” sins. “Men struggle with lust more because they are men” and “women struggle with gossip and lack of control in their emotions because they are women” end up being taught as pink and blue sins. When we talk about modesty, we aim it at women not both; when we talk about gossip we aim it at women not both; when we talk about lust we aim it at men not both (and consequently we go back to talking to the women about modesty….); and the result is that certain passages of scripture are aimed at different genders rather than simply preaching the full counsel of God to the people. We are all sinners who need a savior, and the fruit of the spirit is for all believers, regardless of gender. Parts of the Bible end up being skipped over or misrepresented because they don’t fit into the preconceived gender ideals (looking at you, Eph. 5:21 and Gen. 3:16...). {for more information on these passages, I will provide links at the end of this post} There were purposeful changes made to Gen. 3:16 in the ESV translation to make it seem like women will want to "usurp" their husband's authority, her desire being 'contrary to' him, rather than simply they will desire him. Complementarians use this passage, the improper translation of it, to prove that men will rule over their wives and she will desire to usurp that. They claim that hierarchy is God's design, not a result of the fall.
From the CBMW website:
A Summary of the Complementarian Position
I. A Broad Overview of the Complementarian Position
A. Created Equality of Essence and Distinction of Role
Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. makes clear that male and female are equally created as God’s image, and so are, by God’s created design, equally and fully human. But, as bears out (as seen in its own context and as understood by Paul in and ), their humanity would find expression differently, in a relationship of complementarity, with the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male.
B. Fallen Disruption of God’s Created Design
Sin introduced into God’s created design many manifestations of disruption, among them a disruption in the proper role-relations between man and woman. As most complementarians understand it, informs us that the male/female relationship would now, because of sin, be affected by mutual enmity. In particular, the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways.
C. Restored Role Differentiation through Redemption in Christ
Passages such as and exhibit the fact that God’s created intention of appropriate male leadership and authority should now, in Christ, be fully affirmed, both in the home and in the church. Wives are to submit to their husbands in the model of the Church’s submission to Christ, and women are not to exercise authoritative roles of teaching in the Church in view of Eve’s created relation to Adam. Male headship, then, is seen to be restored in the Christian community as men and women endeavor to express their common humanity according to God’s originally created and good hierarchical design.
They also claim that an assault on complementarianism is an assault on the bride of Christ, written here by Josh Buice for G3. My issue with this is that it gives only two camps to be in, complementarianism (or they would claim the right Biblical camp), and egalitarianism, without ever considering there may be another way to look at things. They raise their view to be the only Biblical view and says that to question that is to question God. As someone who doesn’t fall into either “camp”, I take issue with this tribalism.
This week, The Gospel Coalition (TGC) released an article that was an excerpt of a book. It was…well… bad. It is pretty explicit. It was misogynistic. And it was blasphemous. I will not use the author's name because the author has sufficiently been keelhauled, and I don't desire to drag him through the mud any more than he already has been. The article has had sufficient critique and amazing rebuttals written in far more depth and eloquence than I ever could. It has also been deleted from the TGC website. However, I will reference portions of it in this post, and bring it up because that article was simply a product of its complementarian theology and framework and is the logical outcome of that entire way of thinking about men and women. This issue of over sexualization and one sided sex isn't a new issue, but this article simply framed it more explicitly than normal and therefore created an outcry worthy of attention.
One cannot use the Trinity to peddle female only submission and male headship, then not expect to have men see themselves only as Christ himself and not the bride of Christ. And complementarianism as defined by Piper and Grudem in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood pages 119-122, is based on women submitting to men as Jesus submits to the Father, defending "subordinationalism". It is based on what is called Eternal Subordination of the Son. I have written more on that here. Rachel Green Miller has written a wonderful post on the Definition of Complementarianism. I highly recommend you read it. Not everyone who uses the term "complementarian" mean the same thing, however, as all words do, it does have a definition.
And another part of this “equal but different” discussion involves sex- how we need it differently, experience it differently, see it differently, and even involves the gender roles of “lead and submit”. Apparently, even sex can be egalitarian or complementarian. Who knew?Prominent complementarians are saying that even sex needs to be complementarian or egalitarian. And I am speaking about men who write for the very foundation that coined the term complementarianism. Men who write books and articles quite literally in the name of complementarianism. Not just men who claim to be complementarian, but who are the president of the CBMW and who write in the name of, as a representative of, complementarianism. Prominent voices, teachers and champions of complementarianism. Denny Burke wrote in his article, Taking A Dog By The Ears:
And it all reminds me of Doug Wilson's quote, which, coincidentally, is very similar to what was in the TGC article:
And for the record, I highly recommend the book, The Great Sex Rescue. Because "complementarian" books have been framing sex as a need for men that women both don't necessarily need, and that women are obligated or commanded to give. They too often frame sex as one sided and solely about the male orgasm, ie his pleasure is paramount.
It started in purity culture-- setting the woman's value in her virginity. Books that were and are given to teen boys say their sex drive is natural and someday they will have a wife to fulfill their needs so they won't have to control themselves; and books aimed at teen girls say all boys want is their bodies, so they are responsible to keep the relationship pure because the boys can't help themselves. We are told to be chaste virgins before marriage, also being the gatekeeper of the relationship to ensure we don't go 'too far', and then after marriage are told to be sexually available at all times in whatever way he 'needs'. This is said to keep our marriage secure from the temptation for him to stray.
Books such as For Women Only by Shaunti Feldhahn, attempt to teach women about men and their sexual "needs". In many mainstream marriage books, sex is framed as a need men have that women are simply to provide, no matter what. And I do mean, no matter what. Sex isn't most often described as mutual satisfaction where both experience climax, but rather a time where the woman does whatever she must to bring the man to climax. This means that when she is post-partum, sick, on her period, tired, or menopausal, she is to provide other means of sexual satisfaction for him [1]. Sex is framed as something women do for men to give them confidence, make him feel loved, and to keep him from feeling worthless and rejected [2], to keep them interested in other aspects of the marriage [3], to stroke their ego, to find the key to his heart [4], to help them destress, to keep them from straying, to keep them from being jealous of the attention the children get, because God said in 1 Cor. 7 that the woman's body doesn't belong to her but to her husband, because if men don't ejaculate every 72 hours they go crazy and may cheat or look at porn [5], and so forth. His Needs, Her Needs, even gives an example of a man saying he needs sex so badly he rapes his wife, and the author never addresses that or says that is wrong, but rather goes on to have an entire chapter on the importance of sex for men. Books like The Fruit Of Her Hands by Nancy Wilson even say in flowery terms that marital rape isn't possible because a man can't trespass in his own garden... A horrible view of sex is mainstream in evangelical teaching and marriage books and resources. Martha Peace tells women in her book, The Excellent Wife, that to desire intimacy with her husband is idolatry. {For more information on books that are harmful, please read The Great Sex Rescue.}
Not only is the view of sex wrong, but the view of the man as a type of Christ is mainstream complementarain teaching. This article, Husbands, Get Her Ready for Jesus, this article, Prophet, Priest, and King: The High Calling of Christian Husbands, and this one, How A Head Loves A Body, frame men as a sort of Christ to their wives, keeping them in line. Bill Gothard, John Piper, Doug Wilson, and others say it is a sin for women to "disobey" their husbands, and John MacArthur says men are a type of savior to women. I mean, never mind that Genesis tells us that God looked at Adam and said it wasn't good for man to be alone before He created Eve...
Now enter the TGC article. The author calls sex "an icon of salvation". He tells us that sex has the elements of generosity and hospitality, and goes on to explain that the man's...essence...is a gift, a sacrificial offering, and in this he is generous. Then proceeds to say that the woman accepting that is generosity. The author uses terms such as sanctuary and "Most Holy Place" to describe the woman's genitals. This word picture, which is much more explicit in the entirety of the article, literally makes the man's penis a picture of Christ and the woman's vagina the church. Let me say that again-- the man is Christ and the woman is the church who simply receives Christ generously. People, rightfully so, were disgusted and angry by this. However, this is not new. Joe Rigney, president of Bethlehem College & Seminary, wrote something similar for Desiring God in his article, How A Head Loves a Body, where he says, "A husband is the gardener, and his wife is the garden. He sows his seed; she receives it and bears fruit...". Rigney goes on to say the man is the sun and the woman is the moon, reflecting the sun. His point is that the man is the head and the woman is the body.
Now, there are many issues with the TCG article, and some excellent rebuttals are linked below, but what gets me is that the author made men the picture of Christ rather than equal members of the body of Christ with women. The church is made up of men and women alike, and men are also a part of the bride of Christ, and this word picture denies both men and women the mutuality of being a part of the church, coheirs of the grace of life (1 Peter3:7).
He also framed the male sexual fulfillment experience as a sacrifice, and only talked about the woman as being a hospitable... well... receptacle of the sacrificial offering. There was only talk of his pleasure and her reception of it. This bothered me, but didn't surprise me, as that is how sex is talked about so often in evangelical circles. I have personally been called a feminist simply for saying that sex should be mutually pleasing. But in strictly complementarian circles, "equal but different" doesn't actually mean equal. Because there is apparently a Dark Side To Equality. And with all the hierarchal teaching, word pictures, and emphasis on the men as above women, then why would we expect mutuality and equality in sex, when that isn't found anywhere else, regardless of how many times they try to backpedal and say otherwise?
That article was bad. It should never have been written, made into a book, and then promoted by any organization, but it was, because it really wasn't that different from most other things being written and promoted.
And that is a shame. And I don't want to be associated with this view of men and women.
I have written more on complementarianism here, here, here, and here.
[1] "Sexual Favors" Postpartum
[2] For Women Only by Shaunti Feldhahn
[3] Married Sex by Gary Thomas and Debra Fileta. Thriving Forward posted a screenshot of the book that says that the desire for sex is a way to remind men to be interested in other areas of the marriage.
[4] Married Sex by Gary Thomas and Debra Fileta. Here is a review of this book.
[5] Every Man's Battle Book Review. James Dobson and Every Man's Battle propagate this idea.
Keep your eyes open at Hope For Hurting Wives blog for a review of this book.
*For more information on harmful marriage books and why they are harmful, follow Bare Marriage on FB.
**The TGC article has been deleted. However, it was simply an excerpt from an upcoming book, Beautiful Union. After all the outrage, TGC allowed people to download the first two chapters "to provide context". Then they deleted that as well. Here you can read the first chapter. I am providing this only for context and proof of what I am saying.
***More information on Gen 3:16
Here is a great podcast discussing complementarianism by Theology Gals and Wendy Alsup
More rebuttals to the article:
https://bethfelkerjones.substack.com/p/protestant-bodies-protestant-bedrooms?utm_campaign=auto_share
https://heidelblog.net/2023/03/nature-grace-sex-and-analogies/
I recommend reading Jesus & Gender as well as Worthy, both by Elyse Fitzpatrick and Eric Shumacher.
Bare Marriage Blog
Comments
Post a Comment