Further reflections on the difference between broad & narrow complementarians (see this thread: )
The question before the house is this: Is the difference btw narrows & broads merely a matter of *application* of shared biblical principles, or is it a matter of a different understanding of biblical principles themselves?
To make the question concrete, let's consider one of the key passages: 1 Timothy 2:11-15. There Paul grounds the prohibition on women teaching and exercising authority in the order of creation (Adam first) and the nature of the first sin (Eve deceived).
So here's the question: Does the principle underlying the prohibition (creation order & deception) have broader applicability beyond the immediate one that Paul makes?
In my experience, Narrows tend to own the principle on narrow grounds: that rationale narrowly applies to the question of teaching & exercising authority in the gathered assembly (or, even more narrowly, to the office of pastor/elder).
But what happens if we try to apply the rationale more broadly: B/c Adam was made first, men should exercise authority in the civil sphere. Or, because Adam was made first, women should not teach mixed-sex Sunday school classes?
In such cases, Narrows tend to argue that such application is unbiblical; it's going beyond the Bible. The principle (origins/deception) & the conclusion (teach & exercise authority in assembly) are narrowly defined & tied together so that it's illegitimate to apply them broadly.
Now, from one angle this indicates that the difference is "shared principle, differing application." But from another angle, it's a rejection of the principle *as a principle* that can be broadly applied at all.
In this sense, it's similar to hermeneutical debates about whether we can imitate apostolic exegesis. Jesus says that he's the Greater Solomon & Greater Jonah. But no NT text says that Jesus is the Greater Joseph (Gen 37-50).
So the question is whether we're warranted in identifying Jesus as the Greater Joseph: rejected by his brethren, thrown into a pit, rising to the right hand of power in order to save those who rejected him.
Let's call this a debate btw (narrow) typological minimalists & (broad) typological maximalists. Can we (or even *must* we) imitate apostolic reasoning & exegesis? Or must we *only* reproduce apostolic conclusions where they explicitly identify it?
At one level, this is a debate over application; everyone acknowledges that the biblical authors employed typology. But from another angle, the question is whether typology is a reproducible principle, whether we ought to imitate the apostles in how they read the Bible.
So also in the complementarian debate: ought we to imitate apostolic reasoning, bringing to bear the same principles they used to draw their conclusions in other circumstances? Or must we restrict their reasoning to their particular setting & context & not deploy it more broadly?
In sum, there's a way of so isolating a biblical principle to the part. setting in which it is deployed (as in 1 Tim) that it ceases to function as a principle at all. Thus, what appears to be "shared principle, differing application" is really a debate about the principle itself
