Respective of gender, a couple must complement one another. They simply must for the preservation of their marriage; a couple must learn to work together and become strong in the other’s weakness. If that is what is meant by “complementarianism” then there isn’t a Christian alive that would disagree. Biblical Complementarianism would argue that both men and women have weaknesses/strengths, which are gender specific (though there are exceptions) due to innate physiological differences. Further, a complementarian would assert that a man and woman, due to their physiological make-up, MUST be able to complement one another so long that a woman submits and a man loves (seen in arranged marriage). I would disagree, due to the varying degrees of personalities, which are not related to gender. In many senses I am egalitarian--both theologically and logically (even though it is a 20th century nuance).
I believe that men have been blessed with the anatomical advantage of strength, while only certain women possess great strength. I believe that women have been blessed with the physiological advantage of wisdom and compassion, while only certain men possess these traits. It seems unlikely that a wife exists only to submit and a husband exists to be submitted to in that particular relationship. I cannot accept that the only work God has to do in a wife is to teach her submission. A man is told to dwell with a woman with understanding--that means a husband must understand a woman’s aspirations and ultimately her heart. One of the flaws I see in the complementarian concept is the chauvinism that it brings about. I admit that the Bible has always been patriarchal and male-dominated, but I have seen at many times a woman called to a specific task and the man must come along side of her as a “helper” in order to assist her in the task she has been given. And although it is true that you cannot write doctrine around the exception, I believe that the exceptions exist to show that God is a lot more kingdom-minded than to allow only men to carry out His divine purposes.
Genders exist for a reason. They are meant to do different things; a woman is meant to be a mother while a male is meant to be a father. As the church is together reconciled, a woman is in no wise lesser than a man, though one thing I have learned through logic and conversation is that a couple must learn to fight fairly. Both parties must learn how to resolve a conflict and restore balance in the relationship in a way that doesn‘t force submission, creating subservience. Therefore, submission cannot be coercive because love does not demand (also because submission is a giving act rather than a taking act, haha). There is a reason a woman can strike a man and skirt battery charges while a man that strikes a woman cannot. It is not fair that a man uses his anatomic advantage to lord over a woman; no that is simply unacceptable and punishable by law in the United States. Why, because fairness means that sometimes a party needs special attention in order to create fairness; in this example, a woman needs the protection of the law in order that equality can exist.
A man must come to accept that his wife is different than he (simply because she is a woman and she’s wired differently) and treat her fairly based on her needs. Vice versa too, a woman must not become bitter, but rather learn to work with her husband in all matters. I also believe that woman (men too, but women specifically) have to be extra careful not to use the "pathos-card" with their partners.
In resolving conflict, Paul understand that a man responds well to submission (even though everyone is encouraged to submit just two verses prior in Gal) and a woman responds well to love. I think that a couple should try to live in restorative balance with one another; this balance includes submission to one another (because a man cannot love while expecting his wife to submit). God may require things of your partner that you may not like, but you have to learn to obey God in submitting to being his or her "helper." Therefore what is purported is equality, different physiological make-up, but equality nonetheless. A woman, more complex in her emotions, desires understanding above all from her spouse; similarly, a man desires honor and respect.
I think that rocks, that God did create us with strengths and weaknesses. It take maturity in both parties to admit to weakness. I have a few more thoughts, but they do focus around the concept of learning to fight fairly. I don't think that a person should use the gifts God has given him or her to take advantage of another person (ever). Further, I think that our gifts were given that we might aid eachother. Marital relationship is just one (a very important one) example where there should not be an attitude of gender inequality. There should be determined whose strengths will work in which areas, i.e. who likes to cook, who likes to do laundry, who has the God-given gift of teaching, who has the legal and financial mind, etc. Those aren't "gender specific" roles. Those are just things a couple has to do, whether they delegate the task or not, and who does what should be understood together. If the man was the leader back in the day, that's because the culture supported male leaders. Our's does not support males as the only ones capable of leading.
No comments:
Post a Comment