Complementarianism is an embattled theological position on a # of fronts. I do not find any of the following feasible:
1) To equate complementarianism *as a theological position* w/ misogyny is infeasible. That would require you to repudiate 2 millennia of the church.
1) To equate complementarianism *as a theological position* w/ misogyny is infeasible. That would require you to repudiate 2 millennia of the church.
Regarding this first infeasible option, it wrongly equates mistaken appropriations of the position for sinful ends (e.g. oppression & abuse of women) w/ the position itself. It also is incredibly anti-catholic, esp. given the interest in catholicity by some who take this tack.
2) Another infeasible option, at least for SBC churches, is to retreat from the quest. w/ recourse to local church autonomy. We don’t affirm hierarchical polity, but we also cooperate w/ one another on the basis of a common confession, the BFM 2000, which inc. complementarianism.
3) On the other hand, it is also infeasible to use our confession as a cudgel against those who affirm the same statement on complementarianism but have different opinions regarding its method of deployment in their own local church.
4) It is infeasible to posit a complementarian position that denies, functionally or really, the relation between the office and function of a pastor/elder/overseer.
5) On the other hand, it is infeasible to posit a complementarian position that denies, functionally or really, the ways that women can & should exercise their spiritual gifts as they relate to, e.g., teaching other women (Titus 2), proclaiming the gospel, & the like.
I affirm complementarianism, and became Southern Baptist in part bc of our commitment to this position. But we have to hold it with both charity & clarity. As with most other issues on Twitter, this is a discussion that requires much more nuance than some would have us believe.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
