Your treatise here is salient, concise, well-organized, and honoring of Scripture--thank you! This is a gift to me, as I've been wrestling with some of these ideas quite a lot lately.
Of course! It's been really encouraging to see you taking the time to think and write about issues that are on my heart and mind a lot, and I appreciate you taking an approach that is thoughtful, intelligent, and also affirming of the biblical text.
Love this post, some hard work and deep thought here is super refreshing Jesse!
I attend a church that has done a wonderful job theologically leading me towards an openness towards this view. If pressed I think I couldn’t tell you which ‘camp’ I’m in, but I would strongly fight that each camp can fully reside in the broader camp of orthodox/biblically faithful christianity. That was not a view I could articulate or appreciate as a younger man as well.
Now my approach to this dialogue is more pragmatic. I truly think there is a perpetual war between the sexes that likely spans back to the fall. I see weaknesses in both camps that often feel really similar; putting down the other sex in one way or another. It’s so sadly common in egalitarian circles to see domineering women and weak men, and similarly so common to see in complimentarian circles domineering men and weak women.
I really like what your saying about how the headship of men should include raising up of others. I think that is part of the very essence of Christ’s leadership.
Thanks again for these thoughts dude. Hope you are well.
Russel! So good to hear from you. And yes I definitely think it is crucial that neither side is heresy. And you are right, there can be dysfunctional egalitarian churches and complementarian churches that champion women. Thanks for reading.
Bro, I often think fondly of the times blasting jimmy eat world breakdowns in the coffee shop after it was closed. So good.
Regarding 5a... to me, men who see women as equal co-laborers have the responsibility to raise them up in leadership only because we live in a fallen world where power and strength, and therefore men, are valued more highly, so because they possess that power they have a responsibility to enable the ones viewed as weaker or less valuable, namely women. But you say they have a responsibility to uplift women precisely because they've been given headship by God? Just looking for clarity on what you mean by "there is a unique role of men in authority and headship." If males authority/headship entails surrendering that authority anyway, what's the point of it? I can't get around that being hierarchical. Thanks!
Thank you for the careful read, Kathyrn. Yes, you contend that men are responsible to raise up women “only because we live in a fallen world…” I would just have a significant question mark and hesitance regarding the word “only”, which I why I use cautious language:
[Men’s] unique position in leadership (whether cultural or theological (I think it’s both)) ought not to exclude women from leadership, but rather to raise them up into leadership.
I am open to the idea, though. What do you think Paul is emphasizing via the language of “headship”?
Jesse,
Your treatise here is salient, concise, well-organized, and honoring of Scripture--thank you! This is a gift to me, as I've been wrestling with some of these ideas quite a lot lately.
Thanks for reading, Ryan! It’s been fun to get back in touch via substack. And glad I’m not the only one wrestling through these things!
Of course! It's been really encouraging to see you taking the time to think and write about issues that are on my heart and mind a lot, and I appreciate you taking an approach that is thoughtful, intelligent, and also affirming of the biblical text.
Love this post, some hard work and deep thought here is super refreshing Jesse!
I attend a church that has done a wonderful job theologically leading me towards an openness towards this view. If pressed I think I couldn’t tell you which ‘camp’ I’m in, but I would strongly fight that each camp can fully reside in the broader camp of orthodox/biblically faithful christianity. That was not a view I could articulate or appreciate as a younger man as well.
Now my approach to this dialogue is more pragmatic. I truly think there is a perpetual war between the sexes that likely spans back to the fall. I see weaknesses in both camps that often feel really similar; putting down the other sex in one way or another. It’s so sadly common in egalitarian circles to see domineering women and weak men, and similarly so common to see in complimentarian circles domineering men and weak women.
I really like what your saying about how the headship of men should include raising up of others. I think that is part of the very essence of Christ’s leadership.
Thanks again for these thoughts dude. Hope you are well.
Russel! So good to hear from you. And yes I definitely think it is crucial that neither side is heresy. And you are right, there can be dysfunctional egalitarian churches and complementarian churches that champion women. Thanks for reading.
Bro, I often think fondly of the times blasting jimmy eat world breakdowns in the coffee shop after it was closed. So good.
Regarding 5a... to me, men who see women as equal co-laborers have the responsibility to raise them up in leadership only because we live in a fallen world where power and strength, and therefore men, are valued more highly, so because they possess that power they have a responsibility to enable the ones viewed as weaker or less valuable, namely women. But you say they have a responsibility to uplift women precisely because they've been given headship by God? Just looking for clarity on what you mean by "there is a unique role of men in authority and headship." If males authority/headship entails surrendering that authority anyway, what's the point of it? I can't get around that being hierarchical. Thanks!
Thank you for the careful read, Kathyrn. Yes, you contend that men are responsible to raise up women “only because we live in a fallen world…” I would just have a significant question mark and hesitance regarding the word “only”, which I why I use cautious language:
[Men’s] unique position in leadership (whether cultural or theological (I think it’s both)) ought not to exclude women from leadership, but rather to raise them up into leadership.
I am open to the idea, though. What do you think Paul is emphasizing via the language of “headship”?