Hard Vs. Soft Complementarians « White Washed Feminists

Hard Vs. Soft Complementarians

June 30, 2008 by Cally Tyrol

What’s the difference?

Have at it.

Posted in Definitions | Tagged Complementarianism | 22 Comments

22 Responses

on June 30, 2008 at 10:39 am Anne

What do you want to know?
on June 30, 2008 at 12:10 pm molleth

Hard complementarians are one step away from being full on patriarchalists, if that. They are like Bruce Ware, Doug Wilson, Doug Phillips, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, etc, in that while they have varying opinions on what female subjection entails, but they all agree that female subjection is of utmost importance and should be a part of daily life in the home and in the church.

Piper, for example, says that female subjection should come into play at all times for a godly woman, including when she’s giving instructions to a man lost on the free-way (she should be careful to do it in a way that indicates she respects him as a male and is not trying to usurp authority over him).

Soft complementarians, however, also believe that there are gender roles prescribed in the Bible and that women should fall onto the more submissive side and that a husband is the family leader, and yet what they mean by “leader” means that ONLY after long discussion and attempts to work together, he’s the one that breaks a decisional deadlock if it comes to that.

So the soft comp definition of what female subjection is is VERY different from the hard comp, as is their definition for what it means for a man to “lead.” In most respects, soft comp marriages look a lot like egalitarian marraiges: the goal is to work together as two adults.
on June 30, 2008 at 3:51 pm Lin

Are there any soft ones left? The reason I ask is because of being so involved with seeker megas and seeing the total absorption with ‘authority’ in that world, too.

Even as Saddleback you are given a ‘covenant’ to sign that you will not ‘critisize’ the church, pastor or leadership. That is mega-speak for don’t dare disagree or you are in sin.
on June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm anonymous

Hard complementarians are shorter than 5’5″ tall?
on June 30, 2008 at 5:20 pm TulipGirl

Love the new look, btw!
on June 30, 2008 at 5:27 pm Anne

Cally here… Anne and I are hanging out and I’m on her computer.

Anyway, it looks like by Molleth’s definition that I’m a softy… as of right now anyway. I can probably live with that.
on June 30, 2008 at 6:02 pm normalmiddle

I don’t even know if I am a complementarian. I am more of a egalitarian/complementarian mix. I think Molly’s used the term compegaliarian? egalmentarian?

I dunno. I really struggle with this because I so relate to both sides.

Maybe I’ll figure it out. Maybe not!

I do know, that if I am indeed complementarian, I am a SOFT (and squishy) one at that.
on June 30, 2008 at 6:37 pm TulipGirl

Personally, I love the word “complementarian.” It calls to mind images of bearing one another’s burdens, people operating in their strengths and having help with their weaknesses, being a team. . .’

That said, I know that the term is fraught laden with certain connotations now. . . And I’ve not been drawn to stake a claim in the hard/soft comp or egal discussions at this point.
on June 30, 2008 at 6:53 pm Joy

Tulipgirl,
I too tend to think of it in that way- complementing each other in marriage. But then, the connotations and some of the teaching from the “hard” comps, I really couldn’t agree with by any stretch of the imagination. I guess that makes me squishy soft. Or compegalitarian. Got room on the bench for me, Normal?
on June 30, 2008 at 7:00 pm molleth

http://www.worldofbruce.net/2008/06/30/complementarianism-and-egalitarianism-defined/

Complementarianism and Egalitarianism defined. (This is a really interesting blog, btw. This guy was a hard-comp. pastor and ended up being led out of his views via a lot of Bible study)…
on June 30, 2008 at 7:05 pm molleth

The comps have been accused, and possibly rightly so, of utilizing Orwellian double-speak when they nabbed the word, “complementarian” to define themselves, because what they tend to focus on is heirarchy, not complementarity. (Or at least that would be what I would say). Sort of the “seperate but equal” argument used to make inequality SOUND nice, used to make it SEEM like blacks were getting equal treatment, when in actuality they were in the ones in the back of the bus, back of the line, back of the pay scale, etc…

Whereas egal’s believe in complementarity completely. No one is saying that men and women aren’t different, and NO ONE is saying that we don’t complement eachother in our differences—–the egals just don’t think the complementary differences require gender-based hierarchy, that’s all.
on June 30, 2008 at 7:08 pm molleth

Btw, I’m not actually opposed to heirarchy. I just don’t think the NT advocates one person being in charge of the other person based on their sexual organs. In a good relationship, there will be hierarchy, but when it’s a relationship of two adults, it should be a FLUID hierarchy: meaning, if one person is good at balancing the checkbook and the other person stinks at it, the skilled person has leadership skills that the other one should submit to, etc. So there is always a give and take going on, always a respecting of the other persons gifts and strengths (without squashing the other party). It’s just not a gender based thing, that’s all.

I think that in order to find God-ordained hierarchy in the NT, we absolutely have to interpret it into the text. For example, the text in Colossians about husbands and wives does not say it is setting out gender roles for all time. It is speaking to people in a very patriarchal world. It’s our job to decide the best way to interpret those instructions.
on June 30, 2008 at 7:14 pm Katherine Gunn

Hmm… this quote comes to mind… “In Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female…”
on June 30, 2008 at 7:50 pm joannabug

Can I be a soft complementarian?

I do think the Bible does talk about submission (wives) & sacrifice (husbands), but the way it works out in our marriage, the two don’t look that much different. It’s more like mutual respect.

I could talk awhile about what I think about submission–it feels to me (I know, I’m not exegeting at all here) it’s more like a respectful attitude than unqualified obedience. There’s a 1950s-ish servility that I think has been substituted for a Biblical model of submission in many people’s minds, and that kind of non-confronting-sin-in-a-brother + a martyr-like submissive attitude does not make for a healthy marriage. I respectfully (and sometimes forcefully) disagree/argue/debate with my husband (and he wants me too), and we make our decisions together. But I don’t crush him by rubbing it in if he makes a mistake, to me crushing another person is unsubmissive (and on the other side unsacrficial). Does that make sense?

And I do believe in male elders/pastors. Not because men are inherently superior, either.

But outside of those two circumstances, I don’t think there is a male over female Biblical directive.
on June 30, 2008 at 8:19 pm Joy

Molly,
I love it when you get to talking about this.

Just wondering, is anyone else getting tired of all the labels? Like what Molly was saying about the complimentary in the egalitarian view point versus the hierarchy in the complementarian view. And the white washed thing. None of it quite accurately describes anything, and it’s driving me bonkers. I am so shy of labels as it is, and it makes it so hard to “define” what I believe…

And the minute a certain word or phrase comes out of my mouth, I am shoved in a box, discussion is shut down. (Not here of course.) Sorry, I guess I am ranting.
on June 30, 2008 at 9:05 pm Corrie

Normal,

I am a soft and squishy complementarian or a combo of egal/comp, I suppose. I really don’t know what I can call myself but I do really love the name White Washed Feminist. I will wear that badge with honor and dignity. I know it wasn’t meant to be a compliment but I proudly own the moniker.

I agree with Molly’s post about the differences between hard/soft comps and the players on the hard side. The hard comps are complaining that even comps don’t go far enough with the headship/submission thing, so they are stealthily moving to patriocentrism. And I do mean stealthily and even surreptitiously not steadily.
on June 30, 2008 at 9:09 pm Corrie

Joy,

Yes, the labels do get tiresome but they do help define. It is just hard when you can’t really see yourself fitting under any one label and that is where I am. I think I am growing okay with that. I think that is how it is supposed to be. We are all supposed to be moving towards being One Body united in One Spirit with One Mind.

If we are becoming more polarized and saying “I am of Apollos!” then I truly believe we are moving in the wrong direction.
on July 1, 2008 at 9:17 am Anne2

The shell. They have a little bit of a crusty shell surrounding their personality.
on July 1, 2008 at 10:58 am Annie

I am a soft comp I guess. For us, it works out to talk about things and arrive at a conclusion in matters we disagree. Sometimes talk A LOT. But that’s the way it is with the adults, right? I am interested to know how the soft comp. is different from egal in the way it works out in a marriage. In the end if both partners have differing opinions in a matter, and only one will work, someone has to give. For us, it depends on the situation. It is not consistently me or him. So does that make our marraige egalitarian?
on July 1, 2008 at 11:21 am One who has been burned

Katherine Gunn wrote: “In Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female…”

Amen!!!!

That being said, I have no clue what I am

… but I sure know what I am NOT

… I am not into pharisical legalize humanism that cannot be supported by Scripture no matter how hard some groups try to twist Holy Writ into their agenda of power, manipulation, and control

Rightly or wrongly, I love my husband. He defers to me on somethings & I defer to him on some things. There are other things that we both decide to take a wait-&-see type approach. Moreover, there’s a whole bunch of stuff neither he or I could care about the final decision.

Frankly, I am shocked that I even post on a White Washed Feminist site (my husband thinks it is hysterical cuz he knows how conservative I tend to run!).
on July 2, 2008 at 6:55 am Hutch

I used to refer to myself as “Complimentarian Lite” a position I thought I would never abandon.

A recent in-depth study of biblical church structure and the verses that seem to support restrictions on women with a Greek/Hebrew/English interlinear bible has led me to abandon my claim on that label.

But, soft complimentarians are very close to my position.

Guys something to consider: If you and your wife are both born again and indwelt by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit and you are both seeking God’s will and His best for each other, where do you think that leads?

The thing that puzzles me the most about the Authoritarianists is the apparent yet unstated distrust and suspicions about a women’s abilities and a questioning of a women’s motives.

Sorry, there is not a Christian man I know that I trust and respect more than my wife.
on July 2, 2008 at 7:31 am Hutch

Oops. No my wife is not a man! Grin.

That should have said: Sorry, there is not a Christian man I know that I trust and respect more than I trust and respect my wife.