Complementarianism Is the Genderized Form of American Racist Jim Crow Laws – You’re Separate But Equal, or, Equal in Worth Not In Role
I was discussing in part 1 how most Christian gender complementarians are not usually accurate or forth-right and up-front about what they really mean when they use the word “complementarian.”
There are unspoken, yet understood, rules to the word, by complementarians, that is, the word does not merely mean that the two sexes ‘complement’ each other, but it is assumed by those who go by the term that God approves and wants a male hierarchy and a permanent female subordination.
Complementarians will say often in their sermons, pod casts, articles, and blog posts, that they believe that women are “equal in worth to men, but not in role,” a phrase or concept which was coined by George Knight III in his 1977 book “New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women” (source: The Genesis of Confusion: How ‘Complementarians’ Have Corrupted Communication (PDF Format, from CBE International))
As that PDF page by Giles explains, those Christians who reject equality for women (that would be complementarians and Christian patriarchalists) had to find new language to keep up appearances and not sound like the hucksters of sexism in God’s name that they truly are.
(And yes, what I just wrote also applies to even the “nice” complementarians, and the well-meaning, but still- in- error saner, “soft” complementarians, who still try to defend complementarianism, though they see more and more of its problems in theory and application with every day that passes).