Gender Roles: Are Complementarians Traditionalists?

Jocelyn Anderson, author of the book Woman Submit! featured in my left sidebar, has written an insightful post on her blog (linked in my blogroll), called Complementarians NOT Traditionalists? Hogwash!

One of the things I find frustrating about the complementarian movement, Vision Forum, Eagle Forum, Bill Gothard, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, True Woman, etc. is how the roots of these organizations within a larger movement are shrouded in mystery and utterly unquestioned. Because “all” the “big names” appear to think this whole thing is just straight from God’s mouth to our ears, no one questions what is being taught.

In the article Jocelyn takes apart just one point in the tangled ball of yarn that is the truth and roots of this movement. And a powerful point it is! It is so important for us as believers to be truly aware. Being Bereans is the responsibility of us all – and that must include digging into where these assumed “truths” are coming from and what their roots are. And unfortunately it is such a convoluted mess it can be hard to sort the threads. Jocelyn is doing just that, and this is a very informative piece of the puzzle.


5 Responses

  1. I just made my way halfway through Kathryn Joyce’s new book “Quiverfull,” and it was not easy. The first half of the book deals with women and marriage, focusing on all those who advocate the ontologcial subordination of women. Most disgusting and very disappointing to me was Nancy Campbell’s short discourse on how woman was the only creature that God did not create as a “new creation.” She was not made de novo but it is as if God exercized no creative force in the redesign of Adam’s rib. Woman is therefore the only creature that God made that was second-hand for the sole purpose of servitude. (I guess I missed that section in Genesis where the creation of the gender of all the animals took place.)

    Anyway, there were two pleasant sections in the book — a short interview with Susan Wise Bauer and what I recall as nearly an entire short chapter with Jocelyn Anderson. It has been a number of years since I read through her book, but I am amazed at how this Quiverfull section devoted to her blessed me to read after so much depressing ontological subordination garbage. It was a quite refreshing interlude.

    (Note that Joyce’s book is written from the perspective of what I have referred to as the “liberal press.”)

    • Thanks for posting about this! This book is a subject that is on my “get to” list, but haven’t gotten to yet. 😉 Even though it is written by “secular press” it appears to have good sense! It is a sad day when “the world” can see the truth and the church can’t. Not at all ironically, that was exactly the way of religion during Jesus’ time — and the root of contention between Jesus and the Pharisees/Saducees.

      — Danni

  2. The problem is that the definition of “complementarian” has been pretty well spelled out, but where is the definitive definition of a “traditionalist” to compare it to?

    • It would probably be best to direct that question to the author of the original piece since she has done rather extensive research on the subject.

      — Danni

  3. Very interesting.

    Mrs. Webfoot

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: