John Owen: gender egalitarianism is against nature

Status
Not open for further replies.

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
"supposed them to have grown out of the earth like mushrooms;"

Who said he did not have a sense of humor? :)
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
I never guessed biblicism to be an issue. With rare exception most are cultural accommodationist.
There is a difference between being biblical and being Biblicist. Case in point: I had one complementarian tell me that Genesis 2:18 refers only to Adam and not to men in general. And yet nature and experience (not to mention 1 Corinthians 11:9) tells us the very opposite. I have also heard some complementarians argue that it is okay for women to join the military and so on because it is not expressly condemned in the Bible.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
I had one complementarian tell me that Genesis 2:18 refers only to Adam and not to men in general.
I guess I've not been paying attention, Daniel. I thought Gen 2:18 was the foundational passage supporting complementarianism.

I'd think "a help meet for him" is describing a complement. Why would a complementarian want to restrict it to just Adam?
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
I guess I've not been paying attention, Daniel. I thought Gen 2:18 was the foundational passage supporting complementarianism.

I'd think "a help meet for him" is describing a complement. Why would a complementarian want to restrict it to just Adam?
You are correct to note the discrepancy, Vic. The person in question was happy enough to appeal to the text to prove that Eve complemented Adam, as all wives should their husbands, but then also argued that the "it is not good for the man to be alone" bit only applied to Adam. I have heard others say likewise. Go figure.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
You are correct to note the discrepancy, Vic. The person in question was happy enough to appeal to the text to prove that Eve complemented Adam, as all wives should their husbands, but then also argued that the "it is not good for the man to be alone" bit only applied to Adam. I have heard others say likewise. Go figure.
That is not something I have ever encountered in my reading of Complementarian writers. Can you cite any Complementarian author that would advocate a similar interpretation?

I am not doubting your statements. I am very interested in knowing if this view enjoys any reputable support.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
That is not something I have ever encountered in my reading of Complementarian writers. Can you cite any Complementarian author that would advocate a similar interpretation?

I am not doubting your statements. I am very interested in knowing if this view enjoys any reputable support.
I heard it in a sermon, so, no, I cannot at present point you to a written source for the notion. I do not have any modern commentaries on Genesis at my disposal. Perhaps someone who does can have a quick search for us to see if any modern commentators hold this position. I suspect that the idea probably came from someone who holds that SSA is not a sin.
 

Knecht Christi

Puritan Board Freshman
This extract from John Owen's Excercitations on the Sabbath may be of interest to PB members:

John Owen: gender egalitarianism is against nature

I am increasingly disillusioned with the modern complementarian movement, as it tends towards biblicism and ignores the lessons of nature and experience.
Thanks for sharing that article brother. I too, have become increasingly disappointed with "complementarianism" when compared with the biblical, historical view of the Church. In my view, much of complementarianism still holds to the core beliefs of feminism (at least first and second wave feminism), and thus it tries to address the symptoms without altering the root of a false human philosophy. So the approach becomes not, "recognizing the fundamental difference between men and women in God´s created order, how can we most uphold and obey this in all spheres of life?", but rather (and here I sadly quote one of my own former pastors) "recognizing that men and women are absolutely equal in God´s sight, how can we empower women in every possible way, as long as we don´t directly contradict Scripture?". So in effect, modern "complementarianism" seeks to be as least conformed to biblical principles as possible. I remember frequently hearing brothers in my church say things like "we don´t want to be too complementarian". And thus we have women formally teaching men in any and every context outside of Sunday morning sermons, women praying and reading the Scriptures publicly in the Sunday morning gathering, and having a seminar for our elders, led and taught by a women, on "how to empower women to lead in the church". If I were to mention the name of this church, many here would be familiar with it (it is a new calvinist church, not confessional).

We assume feminism, and then interpret complementarianism inside of those lines, rather than letting Scripture tear down the false philosophies that we are inundated with today. It is interesting to hear the teaching that men and women are equally made in the image of God, used to empower women, whereas, with respect to the image of God, Paul uses it to DIFFERENTIATE men and women in 1st Corinthians 11.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top