For my latest on substack click on the pic
Romans 16: A portrait for men and women serving today
complementarianism
A Masculine Lie?
“Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. (Romans 16:12)
Why spend another few minutes writing about this ‘sin of empathy’’? Because like its partner in crime, Christian Nationalism, the sin of empathy mood is making way into different corners of Australian Christianity. Opening the doors and letting it inside is only going to make an unnecessary mess, so I’m hoping we leave it outside for the wind to blow away.
Are many men feeling emasculated and shamed for being men? Sure. Are many women threatened by the genderless thinking that is today impacting safe women’s spaces and sports? Absolutely.
The notion that macho-masculinity is somehow the answer to the Church’s woes and that feminine characteristics are the primary sin of the church is theologically shallow and pastorally dangerous. Indeed, the ‘sin of empathy’ crowd is as theologically and pastorally flawed as those who see church as a gender free zone. The danger with the latter is that it’s easy to spot. The world’s values aren’t the church’s, and good old-fashioned evangelicals realise that we don’t get our tune from the culture at large. The danger with the former, patriarchy, is that to the reactionary evangelical type, this can come across as a solution. But why exchange one set of faulty thinking for another? Jumping from one house on fire to setting another light is no way forward.
Men blaming women doesn’t sound particularly masculine to me. It’s Adam 2.0 rather than the Second Adam.
For example…
In the latest online defence of his book, Joe Rigney made this claim,
“in my book The Sin of Empathy, I call Feminism “Queen of the Woke,” because of the way that feminism takes a female strength and pathologizes it by deploying feminine compassion where it doesn’t belong.”
Dani Treweek responded with this,
“Let me translate for y’all.
“Deploying female compassion where it doesn’t belong” = women making any meaningful contribution to the life and ministry of the church.”
I have now read enough of Rigney’s position to know that Dani Treweek is representing him fairly. In fact, the more he doubles down online, the less his views resemble complementarianism and instead suggest a neo-patriarchy.
Rigney then replied,
Once again Dr. Treweek misrepresents the argument of the book, but in the process reveals how deeply influenced she is by feminism.
And yet Joe Rigney says things like this,
“There is a reason that the empathetic sex that women are barred from the pastoral office, they were barred from the priestly office in the Old Testament for the same reason. Because priests and pastors, priests in the Old Testament, pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill-suited to that role. So it’s no surprise that in a culture that has become dominated by feminism, it’s deep in the American system at this point, that in that same timeframe, you would have an outbreak of empathy that would become the steering wheel by which every institution is hijacked.”
Back on X (Twitter), Rigney then proceeded to outline how he values the contributions of women in the church…which he then outlines as having babies and cooking meals.
I’m not joking.
‘I’m forced to conclude that, for Dr. Treweek, raising children, managing households, and caring for hurting people are not “meaningful” ministry in the life of the church.
Which is the fundamental feminist lie.’
Ours is an age that often downplays the role of mothers and ignores the tireless love exercised in the home. Our society isn’t the most friendly and affirming for women who make the decision to sit out of the workforce to help raise a family. Is this, however, the sum of women’s contribution to the body of Christ?
It seems that poor Phoebe and Priscilla and a host of women in Romans 16 didn’t get Rigney’s memo.
Again, yes, we ought to esteem and value marriage and children. Ephesians 5 is a wonderful godly model that remains so today. If the totality of women contributing to the church is sex, children, and meals, may I contend that you have wandered a long way from the Scriptures. If Rigney appreciates that it is more, why not include it?
More urgent, how pastorally insensitive and even dangerous, is Rigney’s assumption here? What do Rigney’s words say to single women in our churches? What does his sweeping generalisation communicate to women who are unable to have children?
I know The Handmaid’s Tale’ is a lefty dystopian myth, but sometimes one can imagine where they got the idea from.
To the young men who might be tempted to buy into the Moscow method, it’s only a matter of time before you trip over your beard. If you think that the answer to gender slippery slides is to stand at the top cleaning your rifle and asking when dinner is ready, I humbly suggest that someone ought to push you off the slide.
If men want to know how to lead and serve and love, look to Jesus. Follow his example. We don’t encourage faithfulness in our churches by making gender redundant or by making men sound and smell just a little bit like Andrew Tate.
April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review
I’ve witnessed the ‘Sin of Empathy’ in action
I’ve witnessed the ‘Sin of Empathy’ in action.
To begin with, our Western societies are obviously deeply confused about gender. Are there 2 or 74 genders? Is there any difference between men and women? Masculinity is largely defined in negative terms and one can barely say the word without someone assuming toxicity. And what is a woman? One can lose their job if they dare suggest a definition.
The thing is, we don’t resolve one set of problems by introducing another set of problematic ideas. Reactionary theology becomes, or least can become, as destructive as the concerns originally identified. And so we end up with a vicious game of ping-pong, except the ping-pong ball is a live grenade.
The Bible’s vision for both men and women is beautiful and attractive and good. The complementary nature of Genesis chs 1 and 2 is affirmed by the Lord Jesus, and He and the Apostles present in Scripture the full eschatological picture of the glory of being men and women. Every generation finds ways to undermine or twist Christ’s vision and replace it with an alternative. This has been going on since the earliest of days.
Instead of adorning male and female with the Gospel and the fruit of the Spirit, there are men (and a few women) who somewhere think that demeaning women is righteous and noble.
Anger and verbal abuse is their modus operandi. There is zero positive Gospel vision, simply one denouncement after another, as though they’re playing the role of Athanasius or Spurgeon and everyone else is either Arius or a British Baptist! But like the little boy who called wolf, no one is paying attention should they ever get it right for once.
The background to this latest stream of vitriol is Joe Rigney’s appearance on Al Mohler’s show last week to talk about his book, ‘The Sin of Empathy’. I discussed the interview in my previous blog post. Just in case, Rigney’s basic thesis is that empathy is a feminine trait and is largely responsible for the theological drift we are witnessing in our churches. Empathy is this feminist Trojan horse corrupting Christian life and witness. Yes, I know, Jesus is a man and he’s our empathetic High Priest, so go figure!
As I wrote my own reflections on the interview, I suggested,
‘I am sure the ‘theo-bros’ on X will dismiss me as another weak ‘effeminate’ ‘woke’ pastor’.
No one needs to be a prophet to realise how inevitable that was! However, I have a different reason for writing this follow-up piece, and it is to highlight the kind of fruit patriarchy is growing.
A friend of mine and respected Australian theologian, Dani Treweek, is reading Rigney’s book and has begun posting her reflections on X (Twitter). She soon became subject to a targeted troll attack by the ‘theo-bros’. Dani is a complementarian and used to receiving pushback from one direction, but being complementarian isn’t enough forsome conservative circles.
This is how the theobros treat women. It is vile and anti-Christian in every way.
And no, the trolling wasn’t only by anonymous accounts. Megan Basham jumped on and William Wolfe got into the action with a couple of revealing cheap shots. In fact, a week earlier, Wolfe nailed his colours with this preemptive strike,
‘Watching all these church ladies of both sexes getting worked up about @joe_rigney’s book “The Sin of Empathy” only makes me more excited to read it!’
It reminds me of the shelo asani isha, the old Jewish prayer that thanks God for not making me a woman.
I’m unsure where the man himself was, Joe Rigney. He was certainly present online, and he happily responded to Dani Treweek and as well as some others, but not once (to my knowledge) did he rebuke and call out any of misogyny and disgusting pile on. Why? I do not know.
We could simply ignore this latest online abuse, and for the most part, we ought to ignore the ‘theo-bros’. They are widely regarded as being unreachable, and they love nothing more than an argument. And after all, it’s social media, and much of it is an American echo chamber. Except public words, even those online, either represent or misrepresent the God whom we claim to worship. That’s a problem for public Christianity. Also, the echo chamber has bored a hole under the ocean and is appearing in different segments of Aussie churches.
Take one Presy minister from Australia today who excused the bile by suggesting Dani was asking for it because she made a comment about having a PhD. How often has a man used that defence, ‘she was asking for it’. In fact, it’s his comments that have caused me to stop for a few minutes this morning and write this blog.
This is part of the problem. Slander, insult and assault are often excused or explained away, or we remain silent. Where these men are identified and if they are members of a church somewhere, the Elders ought to be dragging them into a meeting and calling them to repentance or removing them from the church.
What did Paul tell Titus,
“Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.”
And Paul had a word of warning for Timothy about men who demean women,
“People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.”
I’m not writing any of this to give the ‘theobros’ oxygen, but rather encourage brothers and sisters: don’t let your church be a place that accepts or excuses the kind of garbage my friend has experienced far too often, and indeed, what many women have experienced (and yes, men too). Churches, teach the Bible well, display the goodness of God’s creative and redemptive purposes, and guard against the patriarchy.
April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review
Complementarianism, a conversation Baptists want to have?
On the ‘Baptist Union of Victoria’s’ Facebook page this week, a series of articles have been posted on the topic of women in leadership. These articles are not written by Victorian Baptists, nor do they, I believe, reflect the formal Baptist position on women in leadership. If that were the case, the BUV would have to give up its affirmation of diversity, and a growing number of Baptist churches would no longer welcome in the BUV family. However, the publication of these articles is raising questions among pastors, especially the commentary accompanying these posts,
‘Not all Baptist Churches provide opportunities for women to lead. How is your church doing? “Some sexism is blatant, but most of it is subtle, hidden behind so-called “good intentions.” In many churches, it is hidden behind misinterpreted gender roles.”’
‘What is your church doing to empower more women to lead?’
The last question is useful and important, but unfortunately it is being framed by a particular view that wishes to distort a true complementation position.
Uncritically dumping articles into public space can be unhelpful, and leaves readers wondering whether the BUV agrees with the content of these articles, and whether their churches are meant to follow suit?
Obviously someone is wanting to generate a conversation, and it is certainly a topic worthy of dialogue. But to avoid giving the appearance that the BUV is driving this, they ought to put their name to these posts, and they should publish articles that fairly represent the views they are so openly criticising.
The most recent post is Kylie Pidgeon’s article, Complementarianism and Family Violence: The shared dynamics of Power and Control. Kylie Pidgeon raises several important questions that deserve proper consideration by the local church, and I grateful to her for doing this. But sadly, the timbre of her message may be muddied due to the parodic character of other articles being promoted.
In summary, the message being conveyed through this series of posts is that complementarianism means ‘sexism’, ‘gender inequality’ and even ‘domestic violence’. This is a serious accusation and one that ought only to be suggested with the greatest care.
Take for example, the article promoted yesterday, written by Charlie Olivia Grantham, The Case of Subtle Sexism.
Grantham writes,
“male headship are all different strains of the same toxic ideology—sexism. Some sexism is blatant, but most of it is subtle, hidden behind so-called “good intentions.” In many churches, it is hidden behind misinterpreted gender roles.”
But hold on, the Bible teaches and affirms male headship in both marriage and the church. Is the author suggesting the Bible is sexist? Is she accusing God, the author of Scripture, as being sexist? Or with a gigantic and unexplained hermeneutical leap, she can simply denude the relevance of all those passages of Scripture?
Also, Grantham refuses to accept there are countless intelligent and godly women who affirm complementarian theology and practice. In fact, one mature Christian woman, whom I was talking with today, rolled her eyes at Grantham’s suggestion. Is she a sexist for disagreeing with Grantham? Apparently so, as Grantham claims to know the mind of God (even if other women do not) when she says, ’I realized that even if God is calling her to preach, she will never know it because she is blinded by sexist lies fed to her over a lifetime.’
In encouraging woman to take the lead in church, Grantham doesn’t call women to the Scriptures, and to trust God in his word; instead, she calls women to believe in their ‘gut instinct’. What terrible advice to giver anyone, whether male or female. As Christians, is not God in his word an authority over us, and is not our task to trust him and follow his words?
Not only is Grantham’s advice unsound, her presentation of complementarianism is a gross caricature. It’s akin to me pointing to a picture of Bugs Bunny and saying to my kids, that’s exactly what real rabbits are like! Perhaps Grantham is picturing a conservative church somewhere, but it is not representative of any complementarian church I know of.
I remember sitting in a meeting with denominational leaders four years ago, and they all believed complementarians taught that women were inferior to men. I assured them that was not the case, and a church teaching such would be contravening Scripture. But what it showed me is that there is significant ignorance on this issue, and now I understand why, if people are relying on articles like this.
There is such a thing called misogyny, and when it worms its way into the home or the church, it needs to be exposed and thrown out: It is sin. But this is not what complementarians believe or practice. Was the Apostle Paul a woman hater for writing (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, dare we add) 1 Timothy ch.2?
The Bible is adamant on the question of equality between men and women. One is not greater than the other, and neither are they the same. The Bible gives examples of women exercising ministry in the local church and encourages women to serve. We want to learn from them and seek to faithfully apply these Scriptures in our own churches. The Bible also teaches male headship in the home and church; stereotyping or disregarding these Scriptures, only serves to create bigger issues.
Complementarianism is not some strange and archaic practice belonging to pre-enlightenment era of history, it is a view held by many churches today, including Baptist Churches, and it is a position held with broad historical precedence and deep theological warrant. When I have time, I am keen to lay out these arguments in another article.
Having said this, I know thoughtful Christians who have done the hard work of exegeting the Biblical texts and have landed in a different place to myself. I disagree with them on this matter, but I still love them and we partner together in ministry ventures.
Even among complementarians there are some differences. For example, New Testament theologian, Michael Bird, holds to a complementarian view of marriage, but not for the church. John Dickson is okay with women preaching in his church, although they do so under the authority of the church’s leadership. Some churches have male elders but encourage male and female deacons. At Mentone, we praise God for the many women who serve in a multitude of ways, including on staff and as deacons. We would be a far lesser people without their godliness, gifts and love in service.
It is disappointing to see this issue raised in such an unhelpful way. I’m sure it is probably just a super keen staffer wanting a conversation started. At the moment the BUV is an exciting people to be part of, with many encouraging things happening, and so this is a rather unfortunate incident. Hopefully we can do better in the future.
MurrayCampbell.net 