Complementarianism: A Personal Reflection

[Waterfall]

It's strange when you think ancient Rome and Greece were so archaic, yet ancient Egypt allowed women to be politicians, (even become Pharaoh's), own businesses, buy and inherit property, they could represent themselves in court, get a divorce and decide who would inherit their property.
Today there are 29? countries in the world led by women and Mexico just elected a woman this year. Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Gold Meir, etc....from recent history. (and Kim Campbell, sigh)
It's time the US stopped with the slurs, they should be ashamed they're so backwards!

 

[Pavlos Maros]

It's strange when you think ancient Rome and Greece were so archaic, yet ancient Egypt allowed women to be politicians, (even become Pharaoh's), own businesses, buy and inherit property, they could represent themselves in court, get a divorce and decide who would inherit their property.
Today there are 29? countries in the world led by women and Mexico just elected a woman this year. Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Gold Meir, etc....from recent history. (and Kim Campbell, sigh)
It's time the US stopped with the slurs, they should be ashamed they're so backwards!

In my opinion. Women have done a fine job of ruling. Someone, as a joke, once said that the only time a woman ruler would consider violence would be when it was the wrong time of the month. I'd rather that than sit on a powder keg with all the male nutjobs we have in power.

 

[Mendalla]

It's strange when you think ancient Rome and Greece were so archaic, yet ancient Egypt allowed women to be politicians, (even become Pharaoh's), own businesses, buy and inherit property, they could represent themselves in court, get a divorce and decide who would inherit their property.

Rome was slightly better than the Greeks. Women had some inheritance and property rights that they lacked in the Greek world. That's why you see some fairly powerful women showing up in the Imperial household and other roles, even if actual titles (including emperor) remained out of reach for them. So a fairly low glass ceiling rather than being treated as property like they were in at least Athens and related states. IIRC, Spartan women were a bit better off since the men were generally off playing soldier so the women had to run things domestically.

On Egypt, there were very few women pharoahs and most of them kind of snuck into power via partners or children rather than actually being the accepted heir of a pharoah. Hatsepsut even had masculine features like a beard added to many of her images, presumably to legitimize her authority. So, yeah, better but not by much. That includes the famed Cleopatra, who was actually of Macedonian descent and originally came to power via her brother (yes, incest was pretty normal in the ruling class even after the Greek Ptolemies took over).

 

[Waterfall]

In my opinion. Women have done a fine job of ruling. Someone, as a joke, once said that the only time a woman ruler would consider violence would be when it was the wrong time of the month. I'd rather that than sit on a powder keg with all the male nutjobs we have in power.

When I hear the Republicans say, why would China or Russia, (or any powerful country led by a man), listen to a woman?...they really appear so ignorant to me. It's happened before...and they were fine.

 

[Mendalla]

When I hear the Republicans say, why would China or Russia, (or any powerful country led by a man), listen to a woman?...they really appear so ignorant to me. It's happened before...and they were fine.

In fact, they would be much more likely to listen to a strong female leader like a Thatcher or a Merkel than to Trump, whose obsequious behaviour around dictators is showing weakness, not strength.

 

[Waterfall]

In fact, they would be much more likely to listen to a strong female leader like a Thatcher or a Merkel than to Trump, whose obsequious behaviour around dictators is showing weakness, not strength.

Absolutely!

 

[GordW]

But there is also clear evidence from the Pauline letters (vs. pseudo-Paul) of him having women in leadership positions, even teaching and prophesying. So even in the early church there was a disconnect on this issue. It's one of the reasons not all of the letters are regarded as being genuinely by Paul. So do they follow that instruction or do they follow the actual examples of women in leadership positions in the first century or so of Christianity? The New Testament is not as cut and dried on this issue as you make it sound.

One theory (put forward by Borg and Crossan in their book The First Paul) is that this move toward more misogynist/sexist formulations of the role of women in the community was in fact part of the attempt to show the general Roman society (and especially the leadership) that these new Christian communities were not a real threat to how the society worked

 

[Jaebius]

Jae, I know you are not intending to be rude. However, your constant thanks reeks of insincerity, it could simply be a language thing. You do not need to keep thanking us.

I think complementarianism is far older than that, though. In religion, it goes back to whenever it was decided women could not be ministers, etc. Given that Paul had women in positions of leadership in his time, seems to have come later but certainly was in place by the Middle Ages.

It’s insightful to consider complementarianism's historical context. Let's approach this topic with both a respect for tradition and a heart for grasping God’s will for his people.

As the church evolved, various influences shaped its practices, including women's roles. By the Middle Ages, the institutional church had restricted these roles, reflecting the times' broader societal norms.

Today, it’s crucial for us Christians to discern how we can faithfully follow Christ’s example and teachings. This includes recognising the callings of all believers. As we seek to live out the Good News, we must support one another in our diverse callings, always reflecting Christ's love in our communities

 

[Luce NDs]

In my opinion. Women have done a fine job of ruling. Someone, as a joke, once said that the only time a woman ruler would consider violence would be when it was the wrong time of the month. I'd rather that than sit on a powder keg with all the male nutjobs we have in power.

That would be explosive either way ... thus hard on both sides ... resembling the great gonad! Are you familiar with that term extracted from physicians? Do they heal well after eruption?

 

[BetteTheRed]

Someone, as a joke, once said that the only time a woman ruler would consider violence would be when it was the wrong time of the month.

There is no doubt that fluctuations in female hormones can leave one a bit irritable, but I suspect that it's nothing compared to being bathed in the violence hormone, testosterone, 24/7/365. I had a dear friend transition from female to male many years ago, and he was absolutely blown away at the violence of the initial "fight or f***" responses to the hormone treatments.

Women, being the natural recipient of male violence, historically, may have evolved to being less prone to using it. It's definitely at the root of many women's tendency to passive-aggressive behaviour.

 

[Luce NDs]

There is no doubt that fluctuations in female hormones can leave one a bit irritable, but I suspect that it's nothing compared to being bathed in the violence hormone, testosterone, 24/7/365. I had a dear friend transition from female to male many years ago, and he was absolutely blown away at the violence of the initial "fight or f***" responses to the hormone treatments.

Women, being the natural recipient of male violence, historically, may have evolved to being less prone to using it. It's definitely at the root of many women's tendency to passive-aggressive behaviour.

Imagine that get around, or go round! Dead ringer ... blinded reaction is dark considering what could evolve! Lower-D!