Christian Gender Complementarian Analogies Do Not Work
Christian gender complementarians sure are fond of using analogies to support their views. Never mind that their analogies do not work, some are meaningless to some people, and some are arguably heretical.
One of the most favored analogies complementarians employ – to bolster their claim that they believe “women are equal to men in value or worth, just not in role” is to do something like say, “A private in the Army has as much inherent worth as a General, he just doesn’t have as much authority.”
Sometimes, complementarians will patronizingly compare a wife, a marriage, to a boss and employee relationship, in order to make a point that the husband (the boss) may have the “final say” over the wife (the employee), but they are both equal in value as persons.
The problem with such comparisons is that they are based in temporary situations that can change.
Someone who has joined the U.S. military can attend officer training school and shoot from a lower rank to a higher rank.
Even if starting at the bottom of the pile, whether we are talking a military or civilian occupation, an employee who shows dedication, talent, and skill – and possibly one who receives additional education – can be promoted. Today’s mail room subordinate can theoretically be tomorrow’s C.E.O.
In the world of complementarianism, however, a woman is forever stuck in the same role, the same level, no matter how talented she is, or how dedicated or educated.
A woman’s position under complementarianism is always and forever determined by the biological sex she was born into, which is (sorry to the liberals who support transgenderism and gender fluidity), unchangeable. This is sexism. This is not fair. It’s not godly.
It would be similar to insisting that all pastors, teachers, leaders or “tie breakers” in a marriage dispute, must have white skin and no people of color may ever hope to move forward or take on new responsibilities. (Such a view would be unfairly limiting a person based on a trait he or she was born with: skin color.)
Not only is this complementarian thinking in regards to women similar to racism, but others I’ve seen elsewhere online have said they are reminded of Hinduism’s caste system, where a person is forever “stuck” into the caste they were born into- no amount of skill, talent, or education can change that, either.
This is all very contrary to the American ideal where the U.S.A. is thought of as the land of opportunity, and a person can achieve anything she sets her mind to.
Furthermore, all this complementarian fascination with marriage and male headship and wifely submission is quite meaningless to people, especially women, who are divorced, widowed, or who have never married.
I cannot, as a never-married lady, relate to all these analogies complementarians like to dabble in about comparing God’s relationship to Christians with a man being married to a woman.
This brings me to the new complementarian tactic of comparing marriages to the Trinity.
Complementarians believe in something that was at one time referred to as ESS (Eternal Subordination of the Son), which I think some of them have since taken to refer to by another term, what, I do not recollect.
I suspect complementarians dragged this moldy old ESS view out of the closet to combat the first problem with their “role” view I mentioned above: their view is not consistent biblically or I think even logically, so long as they base a woman’s lifelong subordination to a male spouse upon some in-born trait (i.e., her biological sex).
Out of the Christians who believe in a Triune God, the complementarian marriage fixation doesn’t make much sense.
How does one go about comparing a human relationship of two people (husband and wife) to a deity consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? It doesn’t match. What does one do with the Holy Spirit in this view? He’s just chopped liver, I suppose.
The “Jesus eternally submits to the Father” belief complementarians posit also dovetails in with a bizarre, unbiblical tendency complementarians have, which is to promote what I like to call a Pink and Blue Christianity, or, a Pink Jesus for women and a Blue Jesus for men to follow, but that may be a subject I will put in a separate post.
If you are a complementarian, I kindly ask you to please stop using the example of a comparing a General to an Army Private, or a Skipper to a First Mate, a employee to a boss, in order to convince critics of your view that you honestly value women, you merely feel women should not hold certain jobs in a church or marriage.
None of these roles you complementarians cite to support your position are applicable, since in real life, a person can be promoted on the job, if they work hard or receive a college degree. If a person applies herself on a secular job, it is theoretically possible for her to be promoted from subordinate to a supervisor above her current boss.
In order for this analogy to be fully applicable, complementarians would have to admit that if a woman feels called, or attends seminary, or has the talent and dedication, that she too may one day aspire to become a preacher, or an equal to a husband in a marriage.
The only thing preventing Christian women from being preachers, leaders, and full equals in marriage, are complementarian misinterpretations of the Bible and these wonky analogies.
For complementarians who think that Privates in the military have as Much Worth as Generals, watch this scene from the movie “Saving Private Ryan” (on You Tube), and get back to me on that:
Marg Mowczko later discussed this same issue on her blog here:
Further reading for interested parties, other sites:
“And to be quite specific, rather than supporting the permanent subordination of women in the church and the home, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity suggests exactly the opposite.”
The Trinity and the Eternal Subordination of the Son (CBE, cached version)