The Problem with Complementarianism 

That was the best explanation I have ever heard. Thank you so much ❤

Just when I thought I was RadTrad my brother in Christ, Mr. Alan the Polite Leader humbles me again. Thankful for this channel. The Lord be with You!

Thank you for posting.

Way to go Joel. Differences down to the bone. Team Jesus for the win.!

Not a huge Joel Webon fan, but man what and excellent explanation.

Gud Blessful Thursday Morning 2 Yu Polite Leader & Praise The LORD *4 I Appreciate Yu Polite Leader 4 Yur Powerful, Blessful, Deep Interview With Pst. Joel Webbon of Right Response Ministries Where I Agree 💯% With What Pst. Joel Webbon Has Said About "The Problem With Complementarianism!" 4 The Problem With Complementarianism Is That It Allows Women 2 Preach While God's Word Which Is The Bible Has Forbidden It Especially In 1st Timothy 2:12 Which Apostle Paul Says That He Suffers a Woman Not 2 Preach Nor Usurp Authority But 2 Remain In Silence 4 Complementarianism Slows Down The Boychild Than Encouraging Him Which Isn't Good* & God Bless Yu Polite Leader So Veryyyyyy, Veryyyyyy Much & May He Lead Yu All The Time.🙏🙏🕊️🕊️

I think the point of complimentarianism is that women are not somehow “sub-human” because they have different roles and different intrinsic natures. I get Pastor Webbon’s point, but I don’t think any biblical complimentarians are saying anything different than he is.

Great Explanation!

Amen 😇🙏

Hello beloved brother! 😀 Great video! 🤗

Pastor Joel creates a strawman argument by claiming the complimentarianism view makes gender arbitrary a d then knocks it down, when it's the exact opposite. . He completely down plays gender roles that the bible teaches, and takes it to a level of DNA that the bible never goes to. First off it teaches that masculinity and femininity are ordained by God, for a purpose. Men and women are to compliment and complete each other. The scriptures confirm this. They are purposeful and meaningful distinctions that when done right promote the spiritual health of both men and women. The complimentarianism view started all the way back in Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:18. Complimentarianism is also seen In Ephesians 5:21-33. Complimentarianism is also seen in the church, 1 Timothy 2:11, 3:7, Titus 2:2-6. The only prohibition is 1 Timothy 2:12 When we fulfill our God given roles, Christ is honored in the church. It's a living picture of Christs body. 1 Corinthians 12:12- 27.

Amen

I understand where Complementarianism comes from. Most Christians I watch who aren't Reformed (I am not so-called "Reformed" because I do not subscribe to Calvanism, but I agree with them more on this particular issue) hold to a Complementarianism position. Mike Winger flat out says that he doesn't like the term "Patriarchy" because there's too much baggage behind it, and because of all of the "abuses" in that system. Which basically admits the truth, he believes in Patriarchy (a light version of it) and just doesn't like to use the term. The problem with this line of thinking is there is no system in existence that is without people who abuse it. That's just a very destructive way of thinking. The Bible teaches a Patriarchal position of husbands being leaders in the home who also love their wives, it already rejects the idea of abuse just by its very nature. That being said, I agree with what Complementarian position tries to do. It tries to put forth a position to raise up women while not destroying God's created order. The biggest problem to me (I haven't finished watching the video) is that Complementarians try and argue they don't push a Patriarchal position, when in reality they, egalitarians, and feminists all can clearly see that it is a Patriarchal position. So all it looks like to those outside of the position is they're playing out a deception, saying they're not "Patriarchal" when literally "Patriarchy" just means at its core level "father rule" and that's the Complementarian position as well. Both Complementarians and Patriarchals basically believe the same thing, to different degrees and levels. The only real difference here is the terminology, and feminists and egalitarians see right through the term "Complementarian" and just don't care that they're refusing to accept the term Patriarchy, fully acknowledging that it straight up is a Patriarchal position. That, to me, is the real problem with Complementarianism. Its because it is basically the same as a Biblical Patriarchal position, but they refuse to use the term because they see it as bad, but in turn it just looks like a deception to those who oppose any and all forms of Patriarchal positions. The Bible is both Patriarchal and Complementarian, and I don't really mind if people use the latter term instead of the former, but they have to remember that egalitarians/feminists (which are effectively the same thing) just don't care whatsoever. Its more sincere to just use the term Patriarchy.

I would like to know how he sees this function in real life.

What church does Joel pastor? I know he was relieved of his pastorate in San Diego while threatening to sue over the name.

This view at 3:37 is somewhat problematic as it seems to undermine headship which is very much an assigned role, not an ability role. How would you apply this hermeneutic to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, for instance? I find it helpful to think of assignment of roles as honoring God, rather than honoring man, which is what a patriarchy would be.

I always thought the complimentarian view was that men and women are different and thus have different roles. However, they do seem shy about saying women are different emotionally, mentally, abilities, focuses, and often they slide to egalitarian attitudes, then roles

Just today I watched a Complementarian video that stressed the difference in nature. But if the movement in general really does have this problem, yikes. The Bible is clear about the difference in nature, and that Complementarian might be a Patriarchalist without knowing it. Still, I hate the name Patriarchalist. Unmarried women are not under the authority of any man unmarried men are not also under the authority of-fathers and church leadership. And uneducated unbelievers will see that name and assume all kind of sexism that isn't there, and careless Patriarchalists might think men are worth more than women, or that any man has authority over any woman. Ironically, the world actually contributes to that risk by SAYING that Patriarchalists are like that; no medieval Patriarchalist would be pulled in that direction for the same reasons.

I believe in many ways this argument is making a distinction without a difference. I believe most strong complementarians would agree with Right Response. He lost me with the civil magistrate comment.

Interesting, have you looked over what's wrong with Ruckmanism? It seems to be an upgraded form of mormanism.

April 30 2023 That was a rambling nearly incoherent attempt at explaining a premise that complementarianism is a misunderstanding of the biblical gender roles. As soon as the speaker stated that women simply cannot be effective leaders into battle as it were, my question to him could I have asked it would be how do you explain Joan of Arc? A single example perhaps but it refutes all that he said trying in to make his points.

I've subscribed to complementarian ideas, how it's been presented to me is men and women are fundamentally different natures and serve very different roles but they have equal value. I agree with the Patriarchal view I just think it's wise to ensure that women don't feel like lesser because they're meant to do more domestic duties.

I honestly don't think you presented complimentarianism accurately. I've never seen anybody presenting it in that way.

Design over role.

There’s a lot of great women public speakers, so maybe I’m not sure where he’s getting at by saying women can’t. Obviously it’s not biblical for a woman to preach. Anyone care to elaborate?

Is it not enough that we have physical proof of Gods Word? What did God say would be the concequence for Eve's sin? She would give birth in pain! And obviously that curse has not been lifted of the women! So if genesis 3:16 does not apply today or is overruled by galatian 3:26-29 as egalitarians say. Then why do the women still give birth in pain? What kind of God is that, doing like that? What is the point of it all then? Now this is the question no pastor or leader want to answer me. They shut the door in my face, they ignore me for it! Can anyone answer me? And what is the desire that genesis 3:16 talks about? The womens desire is to rule over the man!

Where’s the problem with following Scripture???

Hey Polite Leader, great content amigo. I wanted to ask if you are familiar with the red pill, manosphere, mgtow community? In society the roles of men and women are getting more chaotic than ever. They want want women to be men and men to be like women. Christianity vs Red Pill Anger? Doug Wilson and Michael Foster, a conservation on this issue and how it impacts the church. Please look into it, God bless.

I've been happily married to the same man for 40 years. We don't think in terms of who is "the boss." We tried patrirchy but it didn't work. We just love and trust one another. Christ never reminded anyone who "the boss was" and he never lorded it over anyone. He treated his followers as equals, and even called them his friends. He gave of himself completely. But men take the Bible to do the opposite of what Christ did, and they wonder why deconversion is so common now. 18% of patriarchal marriages are happy. 83% of mariages based on mutual love are happy. I got lucky.

I agree with patriarchy as the biblical truth of GOD's creation, but I don't understand Pastor Joel's statement. He says not only that women may not preach, but that women cannot preach. I guess I need to know a biblical definition of preaching, because I definitely have heard female teachers who teach better than some male teachers. I suppose a biblical definition would be a pastor's or other elder's heralding, proclaiming, publishing the word; and the offices of pastor and elder are restricted to men. Since a woman cannot be a pastor or elder, she cannot preach. (I know women are not allowed to teach men. I am not arguing with that.)

"This is why women can't preach" then he lists the reasons why they shouldn't. I think Joel is making a false distinction just to seem more trad. I agree that women can't preach (well) but I think they can preach poorly and unbiblically. Mainline churches have women pastors everywhere they shouldn't preach because they can't which I think is synonymous. Like women can't play in the MLB, sure you could pay for some and trot them out there and it would be miserable so they shouldn't do that. It's synonymous. I think it's careless by Joel to strawman complimentarianists as all these things when they basically agree with his position.

If women can't preach why are there so many successful woman preachers?

Matriarchy has destroyed our world. Emotionalism, I think we should not listen to but change the rules so that we can be comfortable .

What a load of bull.