Should We Stop Using the Word Complementarian? With Elyse Fitzpatrick and Eric Schumacher 

I’m so grateful for this interview. You all are describing the issues I’ve lived, or have seen others live for decades. These things are very real. I’m excited to go read the Worthy book.

A very interesting interview and perspective. The word complimentarian is not thrown around in Catholic circles, so I feel like I'm peeking in through a window. I've never been at a parish where there weren't women who read the readings. Although, some would say Catholics have their own issues at female inclusion. At 20:42: I had to stop and look to see if that was true. On a scale of true to false it ranks as an "eh, not really". It says the Apostles and Elders gathered to settle the matter [Acts 15:6]. That is an all male group. The only spot where her statement is plausible is in the letter at the end. In Acts 15:23, the greeting of the letter says, "The Apostles and elders and adelphoi, to those in Antioch." Some modern Bibles will translate adelphoi as "brothers and sisters", others will say "brethren", some say "brothers". All can be correct in their own context. Without settling the matter of what the proper translation of that word is, it was meant as a collective greeting from one community to other communities. The fact that they used "adelphoi" (which is a masculine noun) to describe the Christian community in that letter does not mean women were helping decide the matter at the Acts 15 council. It told us who was making the decision in Acts 15:6. At 44:25: The word complementarian means we're different, which breeds disunity. Hmmm... But the NT uses the term sisters and brothers. Doesn't the term sisters and brothers indicate we are different because it uses two different words? It seems that there is no way of getting around pointing out that men and women are different. In any event, that seems like an interpretation issue. If one wants to have a negative understanding of there being differences, then one will have a negative understanding. For others, difference is something to celebrate.

I said the same thing to someone on the opposite end of the Complementarian perspective; no, I will not give up on using the term. Why not? Simply put, the term as understood from it's obvious root, 'complementary', is an accurate summation of Biblical teaching on gender roles. If people misuse language I'd rather simply correct them than be forced to engage in endless euphemism and compromise, in either direction. It honestly doesn't create any more disunity than other sort of distinction and the reality is that Complementarianism is, by definition, the moderate perspective(there's Biblical Patriarchy taught by some in case anyone was not aware). We Complementarians don't believe in male superiority or female oppression. We do believe the Bible teaches God had a plan for men and women *as* men and women, not as androgynous beings of generic divine imageness, and that the nature of men and women corresponds to the roles we're given, as God made it all. Otherwise you have things like male headship in marriage being this forced, arbitrary thing and I just don't buy that perspective. Saying we're more alike than different is quite irrelevant. I'm more like an elephant than a comet but I don't think that means the elephant and I are therefore the same. 20:35 Sorry, but this is not accurate apart from presupposing a specific translation. Acts 15 uses adelphoi, or 'brothers', which can mean brethren including the idea of 'brothers and sisters in the faith' in some cases, but contextually the Apostles and Elders aren't at all indicated to have any women among their membership. Eldership is the one role that I believe Scripture clearly indicates is male specific. Not sure she means to contradict this but the idea of women being actively involved in Elder council meetings without technically being Elders seems like a deliberate sidestep of the issue. I do think women can be Deacons for the record, which includes a wide array of ministry opportunities with the potential to express any and all gifts they might possess, I just don't believe that means we should compromise the teaching of Paul's pastoral Epistle to Timothy in all it says. While I'm at it, Cain was born before Abel, not the other way around. Not important but if you study early Genesis in detail that's quite clear.

"Treat them as interesting humans and not stereotypes." I love it!

Such a great discussion. Thank you Gavin and your guests. Much to process here.

For better or worse, I think we’re stuck with complementarianism as a shibboleth of orthodoxy. Egalitarians most certainly do, do some fine scholarship. But that doesn’t keep them from being unbiblical concerning the role of women in the church. Some thoroughly progressive theologians do equally fine biblical scholarship on certain topics. One thing I take issue with as one who has seen the response of women in one of the most theologically engaged congregations I have ever encountered. They simply DID NOT HAVE the same intensity of curiosity on systematics that many of the men did. I’m not saying that it is never the case, but I am saying that is very rare to see a woman show different colors. I once went through the contributors to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which is NOT an evangelical publication. Eight percent of the hundreds and hundreds of articles were written by women. Very, very few commentaries are written by women. I’m not even aware of a systematic theology written by a woman. Check through faculty lists at seminaries-even liberal ones-and you’ll see that 90% of their female staff are in practical theology of one sort or another. I don’t have an axe to grind against the inclusion of women in these areas. I’m simply being descriptive. Perhaps we need to find out if this situation is fueled by discrimination or is just the result of (the lack of) natural interest. I do think that complementarianism is infected with the remnants of patriarchalism. But that means it’s time to reform it, not get rid of it. Make it answer to its name and actually allow the gifts of men and women to complement one another. My own guess is that the Pauline restrictions have to do with keeping the lines of God-given authority clear, not to keep women in a do-not-use box. I’ve got a sharp little 8-year-old daughter. And if I have anything to say about it, she’s going to know her biblical theology and her church history backwards and forwards!

This interview was very disappointing, especially Eric Schumacher. I attended several Korean American churches and "American" churches in different states and there are ladies who tirelessly provide fellowship meals and prayers for church members. I have yet to meet any of these Godly ladies who sought recognitions and or even ask for any. I know many deacons who tirelessly maintain church buildings, cleaning toilets, and provide rides for their churches. Except maybe one or two, most of them just humbly served without any need for constant attentions. Every now and then, my wife and I will buy them lunches or give them small presents and they just embarrassingly accept with joy, but really ends there. Who are these overtly recognition seeking men or women who complain about complementarian views? Seems like these two people just want to incite troubles for their own agenda. How many Godly women in the bible sought recognitions? Miriam started to question the leadership of Moses and it didn't go well for her. Dr. Thomas Sowell said in a debate "black people have never supported affirmative actions", then when the white liberal intellectual says "you (blacks) chose to put into the mouths of the pollsters", he looked at her said "like most people, I have never even seen pollsters". Most Christian women I have ever known never questioned male eldership or pastor. Most if not all replied "who wants such a burdensome duty". If you view the eldership/pastorship as power instead of the cross, I guess you will start to "desire"... This modern Western egalitarian views that spread widely during 60s is still being preached. I wish they were as passionate about the gospel as their egalitarian views.

Do you think this male and female division is a peculiarity to Protestantism? I ask this because in Catholicism they put so much emphasis on Mary and other female saints that have revealed the mysteries of the Faith better than men at times. I am a Protestant with no wish to convert, but it seems to me that Catholicism has a healthier conception (at least at this point in history) of the role of the sexes within the Body, concerning authority and sharing of the Faith.

32:30 What is this nonsense? Women can be deacons? "Let deacons each be thr husband of one wife" - 1 Tim. 3:12 (ESV)

Yes, you should stop using the term. And we egalitarians should find another label also. Better terms would be something like "hierarchal" and "non-hierarchal," respectively. Both sides believe men and women differ in complementary ways. (In fact, Scot McKnight and others have documented that egals were using "complementary" language before Grudem et al bogarted the term as a disguise for patriarchy.) We differ primarily in that one side defines that complementarity in terms of which positions of supposed "authority" are denied to only one gender.