Standing with Women: Finding a Dog in the Fight

As previously stated, I read too much of what The "Gospel" Coalition puts out. One of their authors recently published a review of Malestrom [sic], a book which applies a feminist hermeneutic to key male figures within the biblical narrative (and is on my reading list). Reviewer Jonathan Parnell starts with the claim:

It wasn’t long into the reading of Malestrom: Manhood Swept Into the Currents of a Changing World before I figured out that I don’t have a dog in this fight.

Never mind that he goes on to express his disdain for a violent and oppressive patriarchy and, thus, to also undercut his own claim to ambivalence. Never mind that Parnell misunderstands feminism to the point that he believes it advocates for female dominance over men, as though patriarchy and feminism are polar opposites. Instead, I want to focus on whether or not a person can remain neutral. For men and women, either we stand with feminist voices, advocating for equality, or we stand against them. Either we speak up for an egalitarian society, or we passively condemn women to the margins by remaining silent -- just as we do by failing to speak out against racism in all its forms, income inequality, and every other form of discrimination.

There is no neutral position. Passive silence is ipso facto a decision against women.

Parnell desperately tries to back-pedal. He denies that he supports patriarchy, but instead paints a picture of complimentarian gender roles:

Follow Jesus—this is where James and I not only have a common enemy in patriarchy, but also a common remedy. In fact, I want to go a step further in explaining more of what following Jesus means. I think a helpful summary of Jesus’s definition of manhood is to “gladly assume sacrificial responsibility.” This sticky phrase captures precisely what Jesus did. He answered God’s call to serve others at enormous cost to himself. Though the calling was hard, he didn’t grumble (Heb. 12:1). Rather than throw around his weight, he made himself nothing (Phil. 2:7). Instead of everyone bowing before his dominion, he put on the apron and washed the dirtiest of feet (John 13:5). When the disciples had been so slow to learn, and would have failed every performance review, Jesus called them his beloved (John 15:13–15). Jesus shows us what manhood is, not by eradicating the role of leadership, but by defining leadership as servanthood.

And this is where I differ from James and the project of Malestrom. Where I define Jesus’s example of manhood in terms of sacrificial leadership, she discourages any specific role (especially leadership) as intrinsic to gender. Both our approaches, I must add, reject patriarchy. If patriarchy (men over women) is one extreme, and feminism (women over men) the other, the egalitarian approach of James attempts an alternative route that has nothing to do with anyone being “over” another.

Therefore, on the grand spectrum, the complementarity approach I advocate isn’t too far from the egalitarian approach of James. Complementarity also doesn’t advocate men over women, and, like the egalitarian approach, men and women are on equal ground. But there’s a crucial distinction. Rather than bleach the differences of the two genders, complementarity shows how they interlock in a beautiful design.

What has traditionally, or patriarchally, been described in the rugged terms of “male dominance” and “female submission” is transformed by complementarity—and practically outworked—as male servanthood and female trust. In other words, it really is like a dance. My wife and I stand shoulder to shoulder, and when we move, we move together. When those moves go well, we both smile. When those moves go bad, I tell her I’m sorry.

Far from patriarchy, and any cultural definition of manhood, the men I know who live this vision take their cues from Jesus. By all means, as James exhorts us, follow Jesus—but as for how that actually looks, there is a better way than what we find in Malestrom.

Again, let us ignore the fact that Christ's example is one for all Christians to follow, that men and women are both called to sacrificial and kenotic love. Let us ignore the history of abuse that has been heaped upon women in the name of "male servanthood and female trust." Instead, I point to this: any system which denies women an active and equal voice in the home, the world, and the Church, is patriarchal. Any system which silences a woman's voice is committing an act of violence. Any system which disavows the full equality of men and women is sin. When Parnell claims that "complementarity" places "men and women...on equal ground," he is either being ignorant or he is lying. Complementarianism is a lie, and it will always be a lie, specifically because it is patriarchal.

And we can either speak out against it, or we can give in through our silence.

There is no other way.