One of the reasons why we might see both continuity and discontinuity in a thought is because we see contextualisation at work. This means that we react to and engage with the thinking of the world around us. This can work for both good and ill. We contextualise for good by considering how to shape our arguments in ways that make sense to our context. We contextualise for ill when we allow the context to shape and modify our arguments. Tim Keller describes this as over-contextualisation.
I’ve been talking about continuity and discontinuity between contemporary complementarian and egalitarian thought, the church fathers and the reformers. Both movements are an attempt to contextualise to today’s society, we may see in both examples of this being for good and for ill.
Let’s explore that a little further with complementarianism. Key leaders in the movement readily acknowledge that they are engaging in a form of contextualisation. John Piper when describing how the term was coined states that he and Wayne Grudem were seeking to respond to two extremes. On the one hand they saw feminism as attempting to deny and remove any sense of distinction between the sexes. Incidentally, it is perhaps true that some forms of feminism have sought to deny any distinction but other forms, especially when responding to more recent issues seeking to re-emphasise that yes there are differences between the sexes but that these should not be the basis for discrimination.
On the other hand, Piper recognises that frequently men have exploited differences, especially physical ones for the purpose of control and abuse. He and Grudem wanted to challenge that. I suspect that some would want to push further onto this, and this is a factor in egalitarian thinking we need to pay attention to, and argue that it isn’t just physical differences that men have exploited but also differences around social experience and power.
So, we often think of the complementarianism in its Campaign for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as a reaction against the radical feminism of the late 20th century. However, I want to suggest that it was a reaction to two other things and these may well be more even more important because I would suggest that radical feminism was itself a product of them.
First of all, you have the industrial revolution. That massively changed assumptions about life, work and family. Prior to arrival of the factories and offices, the distinction between work and home was much more fuzzy. The household was where you worked, you made a living for your family in your home or you were drawn into someone else’s home and household to help them live. You worked to live. The industrial revolution changed that in two ways. First, it broke the link between home and work, so that people began increasingly to commute to the factory or office. Secondly, it meant that industry became a machine that needed feeding with labour so that anyone who could be pulled into the workforce was, children, women, etc. You lived to work. You felt like you were owned as capital.
This is important because when the Bible talks about women being busy at home and managing the household, it has different connotations to how we might see it today when we think of “busy at home” basically meaning “stay in the house to look after toddlers, do the washing and prepare the meal.” Hence John MacArthur’s appalling, derogatory insult to Beth Moore when he infamously told her to “go home.” That instruction to “go home” loses its sting somewhat if the home is the centre of conversation and commerce.
The second thing that was happening, almost in parallel was the growth of individualism and it is noteworthy that a lot of the Complementarian debate takes place in the US where individualism is at its most prominent. The rise of individualism means that you and I are more concerned to find identify and value in our own self potential and actualisation rather than as part of a unit, the household. This is important because Augustine and Calvin et al would have been less likely to think of a person’s identity apart from the household. Further, for most of history and in most cultures, individual ambition has been subordinated to the survival and flourishing of the household, clan and tribe.
I would argue that a lot of contemporary attempts to discuss identity, role and status as it relates to gender are reacting to those two factors. This will be for good as they recognise that there is something in the emphasis on the individual as having identity and dignity because they reflect the image of God. It will also be for good as we seek to challenge the dangers of individualism and point people back to true identity in Christ and our interdependence as we are connected to one another in family and church. It is for ill when we allow individualistic thinking to shape our understanding of who men and women are in the home and the church.
One other example of how contextualisation has shaped the discussion is in my opinion, the modern emphasis on “leadership” and particularly how we’ve drawn business/institutional thinking into the church/home. I’ve commented on that elsewhere but I’m increasingly of the view that the word “leadership” isn’t the most helpful when it comes to describing authority and stewardship in home and church.
Complementarianism and egalitarianism therefore can both show continuity with the past but are also both attempts to engage modern society. In and of itself, that’s not a bad thing but we need to look carefully in detail at the arguments of both to see whether they contextualise well in a manner that relates to the context but is faithful to Scripture.
Faithroots 