Misogyny or what?

NEITHER COMPLEMENTARIAN NOR EGALITARIAN
By Michelle Lee-Barnewall
Baker Academic. 220 pages, £14.99
ISBN 978 0 801 039 577

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof faced a backlash recently following an article he wrote expressing concern about the growing intolerance of liberals.

He was accused of not addressing the horrors of ‘patriarchy, misogyny, complementari-anism, and hateful, hateful bigotry against the LGBTQ community’. The shock of this for me was the insertion of the word ‘complemen-tarian’ in this list of offensive behaviours. Are complementarians now persona non grata?

I am aware that complementarianism exists on a spectrum and have found some expressions of it extremely unhelpful, but this has not been a concern whilst the discussion is ‘in-house’. But when the concept is lined up in the mainstream with ‘patriarchy, misogyny and hateful, hateful bigotry’, it is a serious problem. Why are we so misunderstood? Could it be that we have been behaving in ways that do not adorn the gospel of Christ and instead been caught up in unhealthy rhetoric about authority in gender roles? This recently published book by Michelle Lee-Barnewall may be a timely word for us.

Important work

What Lee- Barnewall is not doing is taking a line regarding women’s ministry, indeed she does not examine in depth either 1 Timothy 2 or the 1 Corinthians passages. She does however do some important work on marriage from both Genesis and Ephesians, particularly regarding how we understand the metaphor ‘head’. She observes that in antiquity ‘head’ imagery was used to suggest prominent status and role such as Nero as the ‘head’ of Rome which was his ‘body’. In this context the body’s concern was to protect their head at all costs, dying for the sake of the emperor if necessary. Her case is that the imagery in Ephesians is used not to elevate the husband’s status but precisely the opposite, calling on the ‘head’ to serve his wife, his ‘body’: the head gives himself up sacrificially for his wife as Christ gave himself up for the church. It is a radical reversal of culture. She concludes that debates which revolve around whether or not Ephesians speaks of male’ authority’ as opposed to gender ‘equality’ do not do justice to the metaphor. She hopes that her work might reframe this debate from its focus on equality/rights and power/authority and instead begin with the kingdom values of unity and love. This unity and restoration of relationship (which was broken at the Fall ) is displayed in the husband’s headship, manifested through sacrifice and love and his wife’s willing submission to this headship. It is a beautiful image.

The book is written in two parts. The first section looks at gender in evangelical history but as in all retellings this is a little over-simplified. She highlights the rise of the cult of the individual post-WWII and gives reasons for the contrasting absorption or rejection of the 1970s feminist movement. She asserts that evangelical women in the 19th century had more influence and a larger sphere than women in some circles in the latter 20th century who became increasingly tied to their roles as wives and mothers.

The second half, ‘reframing gender’, is strongest. She is not discussing gender so much as challenging all Christians to consider the radical reversals that Jesus taught, such as servant leadership, humility, self-sacrifice and love. Her conviction is that in our discussions about gender we frequently lose sight of these gospel reversals. Her core principles need to be heeded. If we could learn to have the same mindset as Christ Jesus in our gendered relationships we might begin to show the world that God’s intention for men and women is beautiful, not hateful bigotry’.