Dee and Deb over at The Wartburg Watch are discussing the infamous list by Wayne Gruden that we’ve discussed before: But What Should Women Do In the Church?

In their post, Wayne Grudem: 83 Biblical Rules for Gospel Women, a commenter named “Looking for You” posted the following.

Ha. Well, in the patriarchal church I attended for almost ten years, women were “allowed” to do exactly one item on these lists: Sing hymns with the congregation. They used to do hymns where the women would sing one verse and the men another until someone complained about it, then that stopped. Women could not make announcements, they could not offer prayer requests, there was no sunday school to teach so that was not an issue, they could not have women’s bible studies at all or even attend the men’s study, they could not hold a job at all unless it was from within the home. They even stopped saying The Lord’s Prayer as a congregation because that would allow for the women to pray aloud in public. Women were not to discuss theology even at meals after church or at church functions because a man might overhear her and learn something from her, and she would have then usurped authority by teaching him something. I once overheard a woman apologize to a man for becoming “too animated” in conversation with him. Another time I was watching a baby boy swatting at a baby girl, who was being very patient about it, and one of the mothers said “She’s going to make a good submissive wife someday.” Uggggggghhhhhh!!!

So anyway, upon comparing my experience in patriarchy with this complementarian list, I have to conclude that patriarchy and complementarianism really are quite different – but only in degree.The principle is exactly the same, I just think that complementarians are very, very inconsistent about applying the principle. Honestly, I think the complimentarians are into the arbitrary drawing of lines, which is confusing and can be downright scary. This is why they cannot define anything, ever. What the patriarchalists have going for them is the ability to define with confidence, because they are consistent.

The issue is that the entire principle upon which both comps and pats base their rules is dead wrong. I am not sure which is worse: arbitrary, confusing rules based on a wrong principle where you never know quite what to expect (complementarianism), or a wrong principle consistently applied to go all the way to the furthest extremes where you know exactly what to expect (patriarchy).

GREAT COMMENT. I agree. This is gold.

I am not sure which is worse: arbitrary, confusing rules based on a wrong principle where you never know quite what to expect (complementarianism), or a wrong principle consistently applied to go all the way to the furthest extremes where you know exactly what to expect (patriarchy).

I have often said to David that at least the patriachalists that don’t allow a woman to speak at all in church are consistent. I completely disagree with them and I think it is really not that difficult to make a case for why they are completely wrong. But the complementarian inconsistency is a huge problem. Read my post The Complementarian Position is Often Not Lived Out Consistently, Even by Ardent Followers in which I share a great story from Wade Burleson that illustrates this very point.

But some will say, Sallie, that isn’t complementarianism. Of course women should say The Lord’s Prayer in church. And I would ask… Why? If Christian writers and pastors like John Piper and Tim Challies think women shouldn’t read the Scriptures in church or lead the congregation in prayer in church, isn’t it just a tiny little step to decide they really shouldn’t be reciting The Lord’s Prayer out loud either? If you are going to be truly consistent with women being silent in church then what other conclusion is there?