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?
Getting Spirited Children to Sleep and Related Challenges
Hi Sallie (my first time commenting here). 🙂
I should add that the pastor at that church based a lot about his view of women in the church on 1 Cor 14:34-35, “let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak…” He claimed this, in the original text, meant that women are not to utter a SOUND with their mouths. So I never understood why we were allowed to participate in singing hymns at all. What was to stop them from disallowing that, other than feeling very foolish to demand such a thing (as they should!)?
Anyway… coming from where I’ve come from, I understand Patriarchy well. I think it’s wrong now, but I understand it. Complementarianism… I do NOT understand, and I see why patriarchalists criticize it so heavily. It is very, very inconsistent… almost schizophrenic. It WANTS to follow the Bible (their view of it) but is too afraid of offending people to really go there. Patriarchalists don’t care about offending people, in fact many of them are quite proud to do so (in my experience).
Looking for You,
Welcome! Thanks for stopping by and leaving your comment.
It is interesting how you view complementarianism after being heavily into patriarchy for so long and now being set free. I think you are right about patriarchy. They are consistent and don’t care if people are offended.
The mainstream complementarian leaders have a big problem on their hands now that people are actually critiquing their teachings online. When they wrote Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the internet wasn’t a big deal. Any criticism of the book was not well publicized. That isn’t the case any longer. Prominent comps are contradicting each other left and right and they can’t get away with it now. It is very confusing for those who follow them.
I watched an online interview with Mary Kassian and Nancy Leigh DeMoss recently. The young woman interviewing them clearly was wanting some concrete answers and she wasn’t getting them. She had interviewed them before and you could almost sense the desperation in her voice in that interview. The young woman clearly wants to do the “right” thing as a comp, but even the leaders will not provide clear teaching. I really felt badly for the woman because you could sense her frustration.
Sallie,
Thank you for the kind welcome! I did see part of that interview but it seemed to be going nowhere so I turned it off. MK and NLD made me think of someone describing a piece of art with a cloth over it, using fluffy words to convince everyone how beeeeeyoo-tiful it is but refusing to uncover it so others can see for themselves what it actually looks like! Clearly they had the young woman convinced that whatever was under that cloth was going to be exquisite and she desperately wanted to see it, but it wasn’t gonna happen. Which begs the question. What ARE they hiding under all their thread-bare phrases?
Reading this just makes me flabbergasted at what human beings will put up with. A church that won’t allow women to make a sound with their mouths (except when singing, and, I supposed, coughing or sneezing) ought to be a church with no women attendees.
And yet women were willing to put up with because they swallowed the lie that it was God’s will that they be so incredibly oppressed, silenced, belittled and diminished as human beings. What kind of a God would even want this?
Looking for You – That’s a great analogy! This is one of the most troubling aspects of complementarianism for me. If it is that important to God wouldn’t He have been much clearer about it?
Kristen – Yes, you are right. And is it any wonder why people are leaving the church in droves? All of the information coming out on the “nones” is incredible. Why would any woman be drawn to the church when this is what is taught? We have been set free and we are free indeed! We have not been set free by the blood of Christ to be subject to the oppressive rules of men. If Christ crucified and the freedom and joy He brings was preached rather than rules for women we would see an incredible revival in this country.
Sallie, I honestly did not know that such practices (Patriarchalism and Complementarianism) made it past the dark ages. I can only conclude that the women that submit to those rules are looking to man for salvation rather than Christ. Brings to mind the Biblical teaching about straining the gnats while swallowing the camel. I have to wonder what these disciplines are choking down as camels. May the Lord come quickly.
Hi B,
That comment you replied to was from 2012. It is still going on. I just wrote a post about this that I’ll link here.
There is a significant turf war going on in the conservative part of the church. A lot of people don’t see it, but it’s there. And it’s impacting young men online. Those young men go to seminary and bring it into unsuspecting churches. Those young men join churches and bring it into the local body.
Add in the over-correction we will inevitably experience in the USA in response to the leftist insanity of the past 15 years and you have a disaster for women in the conservative part of the church just around the corner.
https://sallieborrink.com/reformed-patriarchy-on-silencing-women-at-midweek-prayer-meetings
I think we already have a disaster for conservative women in the church. Many are deconstructing and going over to the liberal progressive side. As a result, I see women believing and taking in so much either politically or in the church and believing it all to their detriment. Having little discernment left. Cherry picking scripture to fit their beliefs (Christian or otherwise) instead of looking at context.
On the other side of things, there are conservative women (like many of us) who are just struggling with being in the church in general and not being able to speak. They are still strong in their faith, but don’t agree with the complementarian model or totally with the egalitarian model. Don’t like the patriarchal aspects of the church either. Many conservative women believe it just because their husbands do and will stay with it because of that.
I put my reply to this in a post.
https://sallieborrink.com/the-conservative-christian-women-who-dont-fit-in
I remember one Sunday when I was “leading” worship because no man was in the singing group (must have just been absent) and I was playing the piano and using the microphone and I sang louder and led perhaps a little better than the women on stage. (or they didn’t want to lead). Anyway, I mostly led by just transitioning from song to song because I don’t really want to speak. Usually the lead man would pray sometime during the song service. I skipped that part. Late and elder told me that he was very worried that I was going to pray (gasp) out loud in the Sunday morning service. Although I told him that I thought I was too shy or uncomfortable doing that, what would have been wrong with it? He said he wasn’t sure but he was glad I didn’t. ughhh…….