Why I resigned from participation in Complegalitarian

As complementarians by large majorities have pointed out in past surveys administered by the blog, the multi-author blog entitled complegalitarian is not a safe place for complementarians.

It is not surprising that few comps are regular contributors. Any complementarian who contributes to the blog’s threads has to be prepared to face a chorus of authors and commenters who never cease belittling complementarianism and never rest until they contradict, not once but over and over again, the emphases, teaching, and exegesis of every non-CBE-style egalitarian whose arguments and conclusions come up for discussion.

I am not a complementarian. I am a (non-CBE-style) egalitarian. I have been accused of all kinds of things by egals on complegal's threads for not toeing the party line as they understand it. I can handle it. I have never toed a party line in my life. I’m not going to start now. I really am a famous bonehead. In my case at least, some things are not likely to change in life this side of death.

In the months in which I commented on complegal on a regular basis, I found the discussion on complegal to be poisonous whenever traditionals and complementarians were described as people who subscribe to a framework which is – no ifs, ands, or buts about it - demeaning to women and entitling to men. Unqualified assertions of this kind, no matter how obviously true they sound to some egals, demean the many women and men who have lived out and continue to live their married lives within a traditional framework or a complementarian framework in full obedience to the full counsel of God as they understand it. The assertions imply that something is fundamentally wrong with the women and men who so live and believe.

Assertions of this kind fail to make the most basic distinctions, such as the distinction between consensual and non-consensual hierarchical arrangements, and the distinction between authority exercised for self-serving ends and authority exercised to the advantage of another person. Consensual authority exercised to the advantage of other persons is a characteristic of all healthy marriages, traditional, comp, and egal, though "responsibility" and not "authority" is the word most often used today for that which is symbolized, in a traditional Eastern Orthodox wedding, by king and queen's crowns on the head of groom and bride.

Finally, assertions of this kind also fail to notice that in all frameworks, including an egalitarian framework, the husband is not and cannot be obligated to yield to his wife in details large or small. That being the case, the only reality that has a chance of making for a healthy marriage is that modeled for us, to use the classical example beloved by traditionals, in Joseph and Mary, both of whom had “submissive and obedient hearts,” before God above all, toward each other, and toward their fellow human beings.

I know traditionals, complementarians, and non-egals whose marriages benefit from the strengths of the framework they have chosen or accept as a given, the quality of whose married life outshines that of many egals. On the other hand, I know egals whose marriages benefit from the strengths of their framework of choice, the quality of whose married life is superior to that of many comps.

That is basic, baseline information as far as I’m concerned. Nonetheless, the implications of this information are often ignored by authors and commenters on complegal. The result is very troubling in my eyes. Conversion – the only kind that matters, repentance and commitment to love as defined for example in 1 Corinthians 13 – is possible within a patriarchal framework, a traditional framework, a comp framework, or an egal framework. If we think not, we have inadvertently made a marriage framework into the gospel and have begun to preach a false gospel.

Surfing the web, I have sometimes landed on blogs by complementarian authors who make sweeping and unqualified statements vis-à-vis egals of the same kind egals often do vis-à-vis complementarians on complegal threads. These same comps seem incapable of identifying the particular risks to which their framework is subject. But then, there are egals on complegal threads who are just as incapable of identifying the particular risks to which their framework is subject.

Since I am egal, I expected better from my fellow egals. I was far more impressed by the graciousness and balance of comps on complegal threads – David Lang and Marilyn Johnson in particular, both of whom have left complegal just as I am doing – than I was by the slash-and-burn style of many of the egals who dominate those threads.

Despite all this, I stuck with complegal for a long time, out of commitment to two kinds of people.

I feel I have a lot to learn from people who self-consciously seek common ground in the middle of the comp-egal spectrum. There are people who comment or used to comment on complegal who have a heart for this. I have learned much from those committed to dialogue and “middle-of-the-roaders” on complegal, and am thankful for complegal and to Wayne and Molly for making those discussions possible.

I expect to continue to benefit from the wisdom of people who are committed to learning from those whose paradigm choice is at odds with their own choice in venues outside of complegal, venues in which such discussion is not undermined by those who see the identification of strengths in a framework they have rejected and risks of the framework they have chosen as threatening to themselves and people they hold dear.

The second class of people I feel committed to are those who have experienced an abusive marriage and/or are in the midst of a marriage in which their spouse is not good-willed and may not even be a believer. Complegal has become a gathering place for a number of women who have been dehumanized by their husbands (mostly comp, sometimes egal). I have been blessed by the experience of friendship with people who are in this situation. I admire their tenacity and commitment to be well and serve God and share their witness.

On other hand, precisely because I care about the people concerned, the question must be asked: is complegal a place of healing for those coming out of, or still in, an abusive relationship?

I would love to say with a clear conscience that it is. But I do not see the fruits of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control – in enough evidence in conversation to affirm that. Please note: this is also a self-criticism on my part.

In addition, many of the emphases I bring to the conversation are not going to bring healing to someone whose life has been taken away from them by a determined abuser.

On the contrary, many of the emphases I know to be helpful to other men and women trigger distress and reawaken trauma in those who have suffered and/or continue to suffer on account of an abusive spouse. Unwittingly then, by contributing to complegal, I enable works of the flesh, in others and myself, as I respond to responses by bringing up subjects which, by their very nature, pour salt into wounds.

The works of the flesh include: quarrels, fits of rage, antagonisms, and a judgmental spirit.

“Wrong” subjects include things like the topic of mutual abuse, a frequent reality but apt to be misused whenever a victim is at the mercy of a resourceful and determined abuser.

Another example: sin-issues, which regard us all, a topic subject to the same abuse the friends of Job put it to. We all have sin-issues. Job did, too. They were irrelevant however to his predicament.

In practice, that means it is wrong to bring up the topic of anger-management with someone who, if she became less angry, would only be that much more vulnerable to her abusive husband’s will.

I know this well as a pastor, but what does that mean in an online setting? That I should not bring up the subject of anger management at all, because, if applied by someone to the wrong situation, it would only make matters worse? Regardless, that is the structure of many of the conversations on complegal. Such conversations are pre-announced train wrecks.

It also isn’t possible to talk about exegetical questions in the way I was trained to do. My teachers include quite a few flaming feminists, but they are also uncompromising historical exegetes. Faithfulness to the text takes a back seat if the goal is to avoid the possibility that a particular abuse to which the text has been subject will occur in the future. If that is the goal, willy-nilly the exegesis becomes ideologically driven. Willy-nilly we should choose the exegesis which is subject to the least practical risks.

I understand. People who have been deeply wounded by abuse of the text’s apparent plain sense naturally seek out alternative ways of understanding the text. There isn’t much point to arguing the details. Whoever has the gall to suggest that the text probably means what people have usually thought it means is treated as a spoil-sport or a traitor to the cause.

It is no different with respect to books about what makes for an excellent marriage. Advice designed for couples who share a commitment to work together on their relationship will make matters worse if applied by one person, wife or husband, to a relationship in which her or his counterpart is determined to use good-will offers to his or her perverse advantage.

It was Eclexia, an egal who suffered abuse from an egal husband, who commented a couple of times on complegal, who drove this point home to me.

It makes no difference if the teaching is submission/submission (CBE-type egalitarianism) or love/respect (complementarian author and practical theologian Emerson Eggerichs). The probability remains that the abuser will take whatever submission/respect is offered and not submit/love in return.

If that is the case, one and the same blog cannot be a place of healing for those whose lives have been taken away from them by abusive spouses, and a place of bridge-building among those who wish to discuss strengths and weaknesses of complementarianism and egalitarianism and of comp and non-comp authors who teach about marriage for general audiences.

What is helpful and appropriate to one group will be, in more ways than one, unhelpful and inappropriate to the other.

In summary, I do not see complegal as a place in which healing for victims of abuse or bridge-building for people with that focus are in sufficient evidence to justify my participation in it. In my view, the two needs are different to the point of being impossible to satisfy in one and the same conversation.

If complegal should ever commit to bridge-building between traditionals, comps, and egals, and hold those who contribute as authors and commenters to contributing in that spirit, I would rejoin it willingly and in a heartbeat. If that were the true focus of complegal, however, a number of the blog’s current authors and regular commenters, I’m convinced, would walk away from it.

Bridge-building and bridge-burning are in fact two very different activities. Both have their place in the grand scheme of things, but one precludes the other in a conversational project which has a minimum of coherency. 

UPDATE: for a more positive opinion of the past quality of discourse on complegal, see Molly and Wayne’s recent posts.

Comments

[Alastair Roberts]

Thought-provoking post. The thing that strikes me is that the very virtues that are often so evidently absent from both sides of such comp-egal debates are the very virtues that are essential for loving marriages. If we cannot display charity, patience, irenicism, and forbearance in such debates, how exactly do we expect our marriages to work (surely marriage involves the sustenance of a form of a healthy 'conversation' between the partners)? A commitment to egal or comp style marriages can never compensate for the loss of these.

[JohnFH]

Alastair,

Thanks for your comment, and the link to your very fine blog.

[Wayne Leman]

1 Cor. 13,
Wayne

[JohnFH]

Wayne,

Thank you for your commitment to that, and to 1 Cor. 14:29.

[Mike Heiser]

Well said, John. Even though I lean to the other side (Comp), I appreciate your brand of egalitarian discussion. I'm sure the people you are targeting here would charge me with not being committed enough. I guess they'd be right if egali-fascism is what they want.

And by the way, if you ever start a society of famous boneheads who don't toe party lines, I'd love to apply for membership.

[Mike Heiser]

I meant "complement-fascism" in that earlier post. I'd love to say my wife distracted me, but it was my own mental drift!!

[Andrew]

Keep up the good work, John. We've dialogued about this in past comment threads and I still greatly appreciate your level-headed contribution. Sounds like you made a good decision. You've got my support!

[Brian]

as i see it, it is really sad this has to be such a devisive issue, when again, as I see it, it doesn't have to be such.

sadly, it shows some people are more devoted to their doctrines than they are to their relationships.

I am an egal - but I am not going to fight tooth and nail over it. there isn't any need to draw lines in the sand really.

[JohnFH]

Andrew and Brian,

Thanks for your comments and support.

I'm not against drawing lines in the sand, but I try to imagine what kind of lines Jesus drew as recounted in John 8:6.

[TL]

Andrew,
That sounds reasonable. Fighting over doctrines isn't something Christians should be doing IMO. Why can we not benefit from the OT Rabbi's who were able to see two ways of looking at things, expound on them both, but leave individuals to decide for themselves which they would lean toward.

John,
I appreciate your concerns, but I find that there is much said in your post that probably shouldn't have been.

blessings
TL

[JohnFH]

TL,

I treasure your willingness to consider my concerns and I look forward to seeing how in fact those concerns will be addressed as complegal moves forward.

For the rest, I am willing to agree to disagree.

[madame]

John,
I enjoyed discussing with you on Complegal. Your wisdom and depth added to any thread, and always gave me something to mull over for a while.
If I offended you in any way, I ask for your forgiveness.

I see what you mean by it not being the place for healing from abusive marriages, but I hold a slightly different opinion. I find that stories illustrate the potential dangers of a doctrine, especially when it's not been taught properly and completely. For me, both theological discussion and practical discussion belong together. Both complement each other.

It was nice "meeting" you.

Blessings,
Ruth

[JohnFH]

Ruth,

I appreciate your comments very much, in particular, your willingness to imagine that complementarianism, if taught properly and completely - that is, with due weight given to all the emphases of Scripture - is not a dangerous teaching. This is basic, baseline information in my view.

Since I am an egal, I believe that egalitarianism, taught properly, is also compatible with the whole counsel of God contained in Scripture. Many complementarians, I've noticed, while they may harbor doubts about that, have apparently concluded that my salvation is nonetheless not on the line. They must figure, as I figure is the case for everyone in some areas, that God finds a way to "work around" apparent blind spots of these dimensions.

In my view, conversation on complegal
will improve if egals who participate loosen up enough to reflect on the potential dangers to which egalitarianism is subject, and if they become less doctrinaire and prosecutorial on questions of exegesis.

[TL]

"if egals who participate loosen up enough to reflect on the potential dangers to which egalitarianism is subject"

Actually, I thought this had been addressed although lightly and not in depth. Since this is your blog and you can feel free reign to say anything you want to, what IYO are those potential dangers specifically. I know you've referred to some here and some there. But it would be nice to have a complete and concise list handy for reflection. :)

[JohnFH]

Hi TL,

It is an interesting exercise, isn't it?

An analogy goes like this. As a Catholic/Protestant, it comes easily to point out the weaknesses and weirdnesses of Protestantism/Catholicism. But what are weaknesses and weirdnesses of my own tradition?

I'll think about making a list. Since I come from a family that has been egal for generations, I have lots of family history to work off of, for starters.

[TL]

John, will you make an effort to separate family history from general egal practices? That might be of some value.

Hey I was raised in Catholicism. I found it easy (at first) to point out the many weaknesses precisely because I felt it did nothing for me. Actually, it did, but it took me a long time to both realize it AND acknowledge it. It is easy to critique what one does not deeply value as you suggest.

[JohnFH]

Hi TL,

My family history, on the contrary, helps me to see how much I benefit from egalitarianism, even as it brings to the fore some of its inherent weaknesses.

It is impressive that you, a former Catholic, are now able to realize that Catholicism has strengths and not just weaknesses.

It is that kind of maturity I look for in former complementarians and former egalitarians. Former comps and former egals who have reached this point have unique gifts to give in the context of bridge-building dialogue.

[madame]

John,
I'm glad you appreciated my comments.
I think I have one thing going for me. I'm not inside the culture of Complementarianism vs Egalitarianism. In Europe it doesn't seem to be such a huge issue. If it is, I've managed to let it go over my head.

I never gave the issue of women preaching much thought at all. I knew my Bible references to go against the very notion of it, and that was it. But then we landed in a church with a female leader.
I had to learn to look beyond the gender of the person standing up at the front.
Once I did that I was able to see all the other problems that have nothing to do with gender!

In marriage, I believe in complementarity without hierarchy, as you know. I can't dismiss the specific verses directed at husbands and wives, but I believe we miss the point when we don't view them in the light of the full counsel of Scripture, at least the full counsel of the NT and the example Jesus left for us to follow. We also do each other and ourselves a disservice when we forget that there is a letter and a spirit.
All the best,
Ruth

[JohnFH]

Ruth,

Our experiences are similar in many respects. I am married to a pastor, a solo new-church-start pastor. While in Europe (Sicily, to be exact), she was pulled out of the pulpit by a well-intentioned Pentecostal who knew, based on his reading of Scripture, that women are not to preach.

After a minute or two of amazement, the men of Paola's church intervened, and returned her to the pulpit. God had already blessed them mightily through the preaching of their sister. They could not have done otherwise.

For the rest, I happen to think complementarity, mutuality, and hierarchy, properly related, are essential ingredients to a healthy marriage of whatever template: traditional, complementarian, and egalitarian.

Society today has severe issues with authority and hierarchy in theory and practice. But I'm not so sure that the answer is to pretend that *authority on behalf of* and domain-based hierarchies are not essential to a well-functioning society and to marriage and family life.

[Mrs. Webfoot]

I wonder if those who have been hurt by the ideology of egalitarianism would be accepted on a blog like complegalitarian.

I wonder how safe it would be for such people to share their stories?

I understand that women have been hurt by certain teachings. I can empathize with that to some extent, and express sympathy.

I think that the goals of Complegalitarian are noble, but not exactly safe for all at this point in time. It "feels" more like a place where Complementarians get worked over in an effort to make us see the light so we can make the paradigm shift to equality.

Yes, we may be Christians, but just not quite as enlightened as some other groups of Christians.

That is how I "feel," anyway. I also feel treated like a small child who really knows nothing, and I am singled out for special attention. Funny. I'm a woman who is made to feel that way by Egalitarians. What's wrong with that picture?

I would love to be an enlightened Egalitarian, but what's in it for me? Women are told by Egalitarians to question what's in a Complementarian marriage for them. What's in Egalitarianism for me, one who is unenlightened and childlike in my understanding? Will I mature if I let the Egalitarian paradigm take me?

I used to be more Egalitarian, probably moderately Egalitarian. Now I am staunchly Complementarian. Should I share on the group the process that I went through to get to where I am today?

I think not. I think I'll just stay away and see if the love will flow without me.

Even so, I appreciate Wayne's efforts and believe that he is a godly, noble human being.

It's just not working for me. I just can't make the paradigm shift back to how I believed at one time.

Sorry about that.

Thank you for your good post, and I really don't expect my comments to be posted, but I feel better after reading your post. It is very kind and helpful to me, personally.

God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot

[JohnFH]

I am impressed when complementarians join the discussion at complegal. One is exposed almost inevitably to being "worked over," as you say. It takes patience to put up with that for an extended period of time.

My deepest concern is probably this, that egalitarianism, which I espouse, becomes Law, not Gospel, in the hands of those who are "it's this way or the highway" egalitarians.

[J. K. Gayle]

John,
You keep saying repeatedly you're an egalitarian (but not a party-line one). Would you mind reminding us why that self-identity? What's at stake for you in your declaration that you believe the scriptures don't put husband above wife?

[JohnFH]

Hi Kurk,

I'm an egalitarian because that's how my marriage is organized and the church I serve with confidence and joy, the United Methodist Church, is egalitarian in structure.

For example, my bishop, and she is an excellent one, is an African American originally from Detroit who, at statewide events, likes to end her sermons with an altar call. She is a breath of fresh air.

In fact, I'm third or fourth generation egal in terms of family background. On a personal level, I'm not sure I would even know how to organize a marriage except along the lines of domain-based hierarchies in which "over-all authority" is vested in principle in both husband and wife, with the tie-breaking vote, in the case of conflict, cast by one or the other as seems appropriate on a case by case basis.

Is it true that the scriptures do not put husband over wife? That is what so-called biblical egals claim, but I don't see it.

So far as I can see, that is true before God and before man in terms of equal regard, but culturally speaking, a wife was subordinated to her husband within the family unit even as, within the domestic realm, a great deal of authority and responsibility was delegated to her.

That is clear from law and practice in the Old Testament, and from the counsel of Paul and Peter in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, I Peter 3, etc. Thus we read in Titus 2:4-5 that wives are to love their husbands, love their children, be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, and submissive to their husbands.

It is clear that Scripture sanctions and endorses a great many cultural conventions of, first of all, the ancient Levant, and then, later, Greco-Roman society.

In terms of the institution of marriage, the conventions so endorsed were nonetheless "hollowed out" in the sense that the husband is called upon to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5), base intimate relations on the principal consent (1 Cor 7), and so on.

Other conventions of ambient society were adamantly opposed, such as, in Greco-Roman society, tolerance of the practice of abortion, exposure of infants, ephebophilia, and so on. Given the steadfast opposition to such things that Christianity embodied, it is no wonder that it was a religion in the ancient world which was found attractive to women in particular, even though patriarchal institutions per se, and slavery, were assimilated to the teachings of Christianity rather than upended.

Egalitarianism in the sense that I am an egalitarian, the modern Western sense, is compatible, I believe, with Scripture, so long as 1 Cor 13 is the criterion of all interpersonal relations.

But egalitarianism as it has come to be configured in modern Western society is not envisioned in scripture. Not in terms of the institution of marriage, and not in terms of elders / presbyteroi and bishops in the church, positions historically reserved for men from the New Testament onwards.

Furthermore, egalitarianism in the modern Western sense creates as many problems as it solves. A traitorous observation, I realize, from the point of view of ideological egalitarians. But there I stand.

If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction, try again.

[J. K. Gayle]

Thanks so much, John! This is really helpful to me when you're so personal (and don't just get abstract way off up in the intellectual clouds -- yes, I know I too, too often, fall into such high fallutin' sounding language myself).

No doubt egalitarianism creates problems, as does what you shorthand with "1 Cor 13." But the main problem with "1 Cor 13" is not disruptive, disrupting love. What if love did not create its problems? The huge issues are that the text Paul writes out of love, descends out of love right into "1 Cor 14," where he instructs (even certain) husbands to get their wives to shut up in church until they can go home to ask their husbands "if these women wish to learn anything" later.

[JohnFH]

I think I understand your point of view, Kurk.

It's typical of some egalitarians, especially if they are "converts" to it, to think of their framework as producing only "good" problems. It's typical of the same egalitarians to think of Paul's qualified commitment to the culture of his day (patriarchy) as producing only "bad" problems.

It is the inability to be critical of one's own framework, the apparently conscious choice to engage in little more than boosterism and cheerleading on the one hand and polemics on the other, that strikes me as immature.

We will be reading Paul for the forseeable future precisely because he, like other early Christians, did not engage in relentless negativity toward the culture in which he lived. It is not a let down that Paul expected love to work itself out within conventional boundaries. His is a profoundly human and profoundly modest approach to life that has much to commend it.

[J. K. Gayle]

It's typical of some egalitarians, especially if they are "converts" to it, to think of their framework as producing only "good" problems. It's typical of the same egalitarians to think of Paul's qualified commitment to the culture of his day (patriarchy) as producing only "bad" problems.

No. You didn't understand, John. That's not what I said or believe. What I believe is that Paul is difficult to understand, and others have said that too. If the same Paul wrote what we've come to read as both I Cor 13 and 14, then there is considerable difficulty (for the Greek readers in Corinth then and for us now).

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Kurk,

for clarifying your thoughts. In the future, perhaps you will give some examples of the "bad" problems that egalitarianism engenders, and of the "good" problems that less than egalitarian frameworks engender. It would make for an honest and illuminating discussion.

Judging from the history of interpretation, the tension you perceive between 1 Cor 13 and 1 Cor 14 is a product of cultural differences between then and now. At least, I don't remember suggestions to the effect that 1 Cor 13 and 14 are in tension until recently.

[Mrs. Webfoot]

John:
I am impressed when complementarians join the discussion at complegal. One is exposed almost inevitably to being "worked over," as you say. It takes patience to put up with that for an extended period of time.>>>>

Webfoot:
I'm not sure that patience is what it takes. It may take a death wish. It may take a person who doesn't mind being abused. It may take someone much more Christlike than I have ever even pretended to be. I don't know. It may just take time.

John:
My deepest concern is probably this, that egalitarianism, which I espouse, becomes Law, not Gospel, in the hands of those who are "it's this way or the highway" egalitarians.>>>>

Webfoot:
Well, that is mostly why I rejected Egalitarianism, even though much of my thinking was and still is very egalitarian. Some of my egalitarian thinking is what tends to get me into trouble with both sides.

I spent some time "dialoguing" with the egals, and it ended very bad for me.

One of the main things that turned me off from the internet form of egalitarianism was the fact that they could not find ANY flaws in their system. Not one.

I would list the things that I thought were problematic in the comp view, and everyone thought that was find. Then, I'd turn it around and ask for weaknesses in the egal worldview.

They couldn't think of one problem that might arise from egalitarianism. They could not or would not admit to an weaknesses.

That more than anything convinced me that they could not have a very strong commitment to truth. Maybe that's a harsh judgment, but then and there I decided that whatever they had, I didn't want it.

I believe that the basic Complementarian idea is Biblical. It took Chrysostom to settle that in my mind.

Are there problems with Complemenatrianism, especially in some of its forms? Sure. Of course there are.

I have two favorite Egalitarians, though - Dorothy L. Sayers and Jill Briscoe. There may be more.

The internet gang is kind of intense, to say the least.

Well, thanks for allowing me to post. Thanks for responding. I appreciate that. You humanized me.

God bless you,
Mrs. Webfoot

[J. K. Gayle]

I think I commented some time back at Complegalitarian, enumerating some of the "flaws" of the "system" of abolitionism. Why the great need for complementarians or egalitarians to enumerate the difficult consequences of life without male domination of females in a marriage? Paul could have enumerated how very problematic it would be for both Onesimus and Philemon for the former to be free (and he did write how tough it'd be on him to lose his friend whom he'd started calling a free brother). Mark could have listed the problems Jesus caused by quoting Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2 on male and fe-male being created in the image of God. Jesus could have go on a bit about the cantankerous issues of non-hierarchy (when calling his students his friends not his slaves). We could all confess that eliminating one-above-the-other marriage relationships would create problems we could count. But is the point just to find common ground? I'm sorry Mrs. Webfoot hasn't felt humanized by "egalitarians." That is ironic indeed. Nothing like Dorothy Sayers or Jill Briscoe or Paul? or Mark or Jesus.

[Mrs. Webfoot]

Gayle:
I think I commented some time back at Complegalitarian, enumerating some of the "flaws" of the "system" of abolitionism.>>>>

What about John Brown?

Then, let's see. Are all forms of egalitarianism liberating? How do you define egalitarianism?

Gayle:
Mrs. Webfoot hasn't felt humanized by "egalitarians.">>>>

Hmmm. I'm sorry, but yes I have. Do you mean that the ones dehumanizing me weren't true egalitarians? Would you mind clarifying?

[Mrs. Webfoot]

Gayle:
Mrs. Webfoot hasn't felt humanized by "egalitarians.">>>>

Hmmm. I'm sorry, but yes I have. Do you mean that the ones dehumanizing me weren't true egalitarians? Would you mind clarifying?>>>>

Besides, Gayle, why don't you talk directly to me? I'm right here.

Mrs. Webfoot

[JohnFH]

Mrs. Webfoot,

Dorothy Sayers and Jill Briscoe are excellent examples of egalitarians who did not or do not allow themselves to be boxed in or over-defined by egalitarianism. This is the kind of egalitarianism I find palatable, something I can identify with.

Kurk,

Perhaps you missed the last paragraph of the initial post on this thread:

"Bridge-building and bridge-burning are in fact two very different activities. Both have their place in the grand scheme of things, but one precludes the other in a conversational project which has a minimum of coherency."

I'm wondering if you make what I consider to be a common mistake of people on both extremes of this particular ideological divide: the assumption that conversion and repentance necessitate a switch to egalitarianism if that is your gospel, or complementarianism if that is your gospel (qua gospel, I suggest, it's choose your poison as it were).

On the contrary, it is my experience that conversion / repentance in the Gospel sense of those words most often occurs without people making framework switches.

Obviously, that is how it was in the ancient world. There wasn't an egal framework in the sense we are using it in existence to switch to.

It's no different today, around the world in many places. Even in those rare cases in which the cultural context allows people to weigh up the "two" alternatives and freely choose between them, I submit that the choice made is not an index of conversion and repentance in the Gospel sense of those words.

But hey, if in light of all this you still want to go about burning bridges rather than building them, I will only point out that the polarization the burning causes will have unintended consequences that perhaps you did not imagine.

Burning bridges causes collateral damage. It's even less accurate than the kind of "precision"-bombing the US under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama engage in, in pursuit of taking out the bad guys.

I am not a pacifist across the board, but I am a pacifist on the choose-between-compism-and-egalism issue.

On this issue, as far as I can see, you are a warmonger. I don't want to overinterpret you, but that is how you come across to me, though you are gentle about it.

A number of ex-comps (maybe that is what you are, too), some of whom I count as friends, also define the need of the hour as that of denigrating the marriage arrangement comps choose and sheltering the marriage arrangement egals choose from any and all criticism.

In my view, it would be healthier for us all to be self-critical as well as critical, precisely in terms of the cultural choices we make and those we reject.

I think you have it in you to be balanced in that sense. But I don't think you have yet made the choice to be so.

[J. K. Gayle]

Dear Mrs. Webfoot,
I don't think we'd been introduced. Certainly didn't mean to ignore you much less offend you in any way.

Dear John,
Of course I'm open to conversation and to self-reflection. Did I call you a name or interpret you, as far as I can see, as coming across as anything so mean as what you call me? Peace, my friend.

Notice please, John and Mrs. Webfoot, that I didn't address either one of you directly because I was wanting to draw analogies not point to you or your beliefs. I believe you can speak gently (or otherwise) for yourselves. Please know that I was neither intending to attack either of you or to assume you "are" anything you don't claim to be. Please don't take offense. Please know that none's intended in the least.

[Mrs. Webfoot]

That's fine, J.K.

Okay. In what ways are you self-critical? When you see your side denegrating the other side, how do you react? Do you "pile on", joining in with your side, or do you try to get your side to tone it down, to take it down a notch?

Just wondering. No need to respond.

[JohnFH]

Kurk,

I'm perfectly aware that you mean no harm. You are the one of the best-intentioned people I know.

Peace to you.

[Mrs. Webfoot]

Hey, God bless, and thanks guys for letting me interjet a few of my thoughts into this. I appreciate that, and wish you all the best. This discussion has been very honest and helpful.

Thanks. Very interesting.

God bless, and please take care,
Mrs. Webfoot

[Mrs. Webfoot]

J.K., I'm not offended, so not to worry.

I hope you're not offended that I assumed you were a woman, or that I butted into this conversation.

Again, this is fascinating and helpful to me, at least.

Take care,
Mrs. Webfoot

[J. K. Gayle]

Thank you, Mrs. Webfoot. And thank you, John. I'm not offended and hope you didn't feel any offense from me either. In fact, you both inspired, in part, a post at my blog.

[Lynn]

Uh . . . I'm complementarian, and I just started posting to the new complegalitarian board. Why don't you give it another try soon? Your point of view as an egalitarian sounds interesting to me.

[JohnFH]

Hi Lynn,

That's a mighty fine blog you have. Thanks for the invitation. I don't want to exclude anything. But for now, I'm planning to stay on the complegal sidelines.

I will blog on the issues here on occasion.