Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Subdugating Women With The Bible (again)

Someone has caused a stir by parroting the typical nonsense you hear from more hard line complementarians,

Claude Mariottini takes exception as does Darrell Pursiful.

In a similar vein but with a more positive aproach Rachel Held Evans lists ten biblical reasons for women to be in leadership.

All of which reminds me of an insightful and creative post (even if I do say so myself) from last year on this very topic.  If you missed it, now you have another chance.

Ladies First: Genesis 3 and Gender Roles

Let me know what you think! :-)


  1. Alleged theologian? It would seem he is a theologian, just one whom you disagree with. Or are real theologians only those who agree with you?

  2. of course you are quite right Ali, that ad hominem was unworthy. apologies.

  3. I'm not sure that what you've got there now is much better. Parroting? Typical nonsense? Hardline complementarians?

    I'm wondering if it's fair to suggest sometimes your emotions get the better of your exegetical engagement when it comes to the biblical issues surrounding gender. Is it?

    I'm not an Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, but even I haven't accepted such nonsense by merely parroting. I have checked that particular argument out and I think it's a reasonable (though hardly essential) inference. And neither would I describe myself nor him as "hardline". Is it even possible for the organisation that adopted and defined the word "complementarian" to be "hardline complementarians"? There are many people I'd consider hardline whose positions on gender I do not hold. Perhaps they are hard-hardline?

    I know it's possible to consider these things in a kind and gentle manner. I don't think your post is it.

    (And perhaps it wasn't meant to be).