Complementarian Bruce Ware: Women Recieve Salvation By Faith Through Works, and More

Does Dr. Bruce Ware Accurately Represent

the Way that Jesus Thinks of Women?

Dr. Ware, member of the complementarian group CBMW's council and professor of theology at SBTS, has made waves with a recent sermon he gave. While some complementarians are outraged, Ware's sermon is being hailed by others, like Denny Burk, associate professor at Criswell, as,

"...one of the finest, most succinct presentations of the Complementarian point of
view that I have ever heard.

[Read the full post here, comments section is long, but certainly interesting, including many female complementarians voicing disagreement with Burk and Ware].

To this amateur theologian, I wonder why Ware's sermon doesn't trouble Christ-followers on many fronts. This post deals with what I see to be two of the most disturbing, two points that I imagine those from both complementarian and egalitarian camps may be able to agree are of concern:

Ware: Male Abuse Is Often a Response to Female Disobedience

Ware said that one reason men abuse their wives is because wives do not respect male authority. To quote from Ware's sermon,

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat
to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways
men can respond when their authority is challenged--or, more commonly, to become
passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as
men in their homes and in churches..."

Ware believes that sin, for a woman, is not obeying her husband. According to Ware, a husband's abusive behaviour often stems from a natural outrage at the woman's insubordination. Though Ware says he does not agree with abuse as a proper way to handle conflict, he is authoritatively teaching that male abuse often arises as a response to the female's "sin" of not being submissive to the male. His teaching seems to imply that the worse sin is female insubordination.

Commenting on selected passages from the first three chapters of Genesis, Ware said Eve's curse in the Garden of Eden meant "her desire will be to have her way" instead of her obeying her husband, "because she's a sinner." [quoted from the Ethics Daily
article, here].

Considering we claim to follow a God who talks about the righteous being those who help the weak (from being abused by the strong), this teaching of Ware's seems to be more in line with the reason many Muslim women are covered from head to toe. In the Taliban's estimation, the women incite the men to sin---the man's sin is a lesser offense, and if we can get the women in line, the men will sin less---therefore women are required to wear burqas. Though it is certainly different in some ways from Taliban-esque thinking, Ware's logical construct for explaining the rational behind much of male abuse is sorrowfully not.

A blog post by a former Complegalitarian writer, further discussing concerns with Ware's comments about abused women, is here.

Ware: A Woman's Salvation Comes By Faith Through Her Obedient Womb

At this point many readers familiar with abused/abuser dynamics might be wondering what could possibly be more disturbing than Ware's comments about why many men abuse. Well, this. In his sermon, Ware essentially preaches a doctrine of salvation by faith through works for women. If Ware is correct, it appears that a woman's salvation hinges upon her active acceptance of complementarian gender roles. Quoting again from the Ethics Daily article,

Ware also touched on a verse from First Timothy saying that women "shall be saved in childbearing," by noting that the word translated as "saved" always refers to eternal salvation.

"It means that a woman will demonstrate that she is in fact a Christian, that she has submitted to God's ways by affirming and embracing her God-designed identity as--for the most part, generally this is true--as wife and mother, rather than chafing against it, rather than bucking against it, rather than wanting to be a man, wanting to be in a man's position, wanting to teach and exercise authority over men," Ware said. "Rather than wanting that, she accepts and embraces who she is as woman, because she knows God and she knows his ways are right and good, so she is marked as a Christian by her submission to God and in that her acceptance of God's design for her as a woman."

Cindy Kinsman, who has spoken in the past her concerns with the rise of "hard" complementarian thought in the Southern Baptist church (and who was soundly criticised for it), voices concern about Ware's recent sermon, saying,

For women, interpreting I Timothy 2:15 in the manner Ware describes (apart from
the full context of the verse, even withstanding previous complemenarian
teachings) argues that God mediates salvation to women differently, through
certain works in combination with faith.

In Closing

That Ware spoke at a large much-lauded conservative church is troubling. That he is praised for "rightly and clearly representing complementarian doctrine" is more troubling. I will admit, after wading through all of these posts, to sitting here with a heavy heart. If this is not an adequate representation of complementarian doctrine for you, and if you live in circles where Ware is considered an authoritative leader, please make your voice heard.

Complementarians: Answers to These Concerns?

Sam at Unrelated Ramblings recently posed some critisicm to complementarian thought (please read the full post here).

To sum them up in my own words, his two main thoughts are:

1. What purpose does it serve to have women as inferiors in a spiritual/church/home hierarchy when they appear to be quite capable of leadership in every other area?

2. Upon deciding on hierarchal gender roles, doesn't the then required "practical details" list (regarding the specifics of what women can and can't do in the church and home) seem a little more like the old covenant and less like the new?

When I was a complementarian, my answer to the first question would have been that it doesn't matter if women are or are not capable---that's not the point. The point is that Christ and His Church must be exemplified in our lives. That we may have to sublimate parts of ourselves in order to do that is a small sacrifice compared to what He did for us. God's word is to be obeyed, when we feel like it and when we don't, and the Bible clearly says that women are not to be leaders in the home or the church. Whether or not it "makes sense" from our vantage point is beside the point.

My former answer to the second comment would have been that it only feels like "law" if you don't grasp the liberating spirit of it.

My answer now to Sam's post is something along the lines of, "Good post, brother." I think the criticisms are valid points worth talking about, primarily because I think that the complementarian interpretation of Scripture is one optional interpretation, not the only one, therefore questions like Sam's have a lot to do with how a person like myself gauges which interpretations are more likely to be accurate. It's an interesting thing---looking at optional interpretations and judging them. Worth discussing.

Also, especially in the interest of fairness, it would be nice to hear other complementarian responses to Sam's questions besides the ones I imagined myself giving. Thoughts?

1 Peter 3: 1-8 (Complementarian and Egalitarian Interpretation)

1In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,

2as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.

3Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

4but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

5For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands;

6just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

7You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

8To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;

9not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.
[NASB]

How does this passage inform or effect your faith-and-gender framework?

Are Women Allowed To Teach Men?

Today's post at the christian feminism blog is titled Are Women Allowed To Teach Men? The post raises a number of questions:

Does this verse [1 Tim. 2:12] bar women from not only teaching the scripture to men, but from holding ANY teaching position in which they would instruct men? Should christian women be forbidden from becoming college professors at co-ed universities? Or public speakers? Should they be judges, senators, governors, or hold other political offices? Should christian women hire male employees if they run their own businesses? Extreme complementarians would assert that christian men should NEVER put themselves under a woman’s authority in any setting: church, home, business, school, and so forth and that christian women should never aspire to obtain any position in the church, home, and business, political, and educational realms that would make them the “boss,” “expert,” “teacher,” “instructor,” or “leader” over men.
On the other hand, more moderate-complementarians claim this verse only applies to church and home. So, a woman may teach a man math or history in a college class, but cannot teach on scripture in a co-ed adult bible class. She may “share” a testimony or encouraging word, but cannot teach, pontificate, or expound upon the Bible. A woman may have authority over her male students or employees, but never in the church. In the church, she may never hold any position other than backup singer, nursery worker, or jobs ministries made up solely of women and children.

If you are interested in this topic, read other posts in the series on that blog. And feel free to comment here or on at blog.

HT: JK Gayle

What is the Debate between Complementarians and Egalitarians really about?

John Hobbins, who has become a friend, has begun posting a series on the Complementarian-Egalitarian divide. The first post is titled What is the Debate between Complementarians and Egalitarians really about?

I recommend John's series for readers of this blog. John always makes me think, whether or not I agree with him or not. He has a heart for true Christian spirituality.

UPDATE: Suzanne McCarthy is also blogging on this topic.

Married to One of "Them" (A Complementarian and Egalitarian in Marriage)

It's akin to a Republican and Democrat being married, but only during an election year. In actuality, they have it much easier. Politics, while we all love our political issues, are not what spin the globe. Whereas the way a married couple chooses to give structure to their relationship is an area much more integrated with all aspects of life. A comp/egal marriage is probably more akin to a Christian/Jewish marriage. So can you love when you live in two totally different paradigms?

Yes.

But it's really hard.

I'm an egalitarian (now) and I was married to a complementarian. I'm not really sure to what degree that is, but I will say that in the name of sacrificial love, he's chosen to refuse the path of forcing me to comply with a complementarian outlook and instead has opted for a, "we choose together" framework for our home. For my part, I was more than willing to let him continue to "have the final say," for the same reason that he wasn't willing to have it anymore. Because of love.

It's been two years since I quit patriarchy (otherwise known as hard complementarianism). There was a lot of pain there. By the time I "quit," I was a deeply wounded person (much of it not due to patriarchy but due to the sharp fundamentalist outlook I'd had on other big issues, etc). A huge part of my pain was the fact that because I was female, I'd not allowed myself to be "myself." In the "Biblical Womanhood" world, godly women are quiet, submissive, teachable, and for God's sake, never behind a pulpit. I stuffed myself into the box I thought God wanted me in for so long, I started thinking the world was a wooden square. Then God, in His good grace, let the box drop.

Once I was free, I'll admit it. It took me awhile to relax. Like an abused caged wild animal newly set free, most any movement made me flinch and anything that looked like a cage wall made me snarl and run. I am seeing that change. A lot of things that were triggers before aren't triggers now. I'm a lot less sensitive than I was. Things inside of me are healing---or at least are beginning to. I can look back and not just see pain, but see how the pain started, how it grew, and see how much of it was my own fault. And, good grief, a lot of it was so my fault.

I know things are hard for my husband, or so I would think, what with the two of us seeing things so very differently. We were already opposites from the get-go, and this just magifies it. He's having to operate in a way that he may not feel is well supported in the Scriptures. And that is hard for me. It troubles me to think that he has to lay down his Scriptural views because mine are different. Actually, it more than troubles me. I really don't like it. And yet I can't/won't go back to a hierarchal structure. Call it an allergy to cages (and maybe I'll grow out of it, but right now, it's strong). Even if I would, he refuses, because he would know it was violating what I think Scripture says. Maybe he's wrong for folding. Maybe he should demand to lead. Maybe I'm wrong for not being willing to fold myself. I don't know.

Honestly, in the long run, I think the one doing the most sacrificing is my husband. And as for an answer to that, I don't see one and neither does he. So we live together and learn to love, without a sound structure that we agree on for this marriage of two totally different people. Sometimes I wish we had one. At other times, I'm glad that we don't. We are forced to work together, forced to learn to listen, forced to learn to grow in ways that, when all is said and done, can only make Christ shine brighter. I lay down the theological/emotional/intellectual guns that I so badly want to fire, and in the process, find a person on the other side of the divide---my husband, a person that is deep, that is delightful, a person that God calls beloved. At those times, I think that seeing things the same way is over-rated.

So how do you do it, and/or how have you seen it done? How do two different paradigms live in union? Is Christ big enough for both?

*Edit Later to Add:
This post prompted a great discussion between my husband and I tonight as to "where we're both at" on the comp/egal continuum, and so now I have to take back some of the above. He's currently uncomfortable being called a complementarian. (Last time we talked about this was 4-5 months ago, when he expressed views that landed at a fairly soft-comp sort of place). So I have to take a lot of the personal nature of the above post back, and yet I still think the subject of the post itself is something worth talking about.

The Top Three

What are the three most convincing passages in Scripture that have helped to form your current position (of Complementarian, Egalitarian, or somewhere in the middle). Please feel free to explain/expound.