Slippery Slopes, Susan Wise Bauer, and Patriarchy
You all have probably read this article already, but if not, click here and prepare to have your mind challenged. Susan Wise Bauer, author of the Well-Trained Mind, etc, muses on the nasty reaction she recieved when she blogged about being an egalitarian (remember that? See here if you feel out of the loop and want to see her original post. It caused quite a stir in the blogworld of conservative Christian women, mostly along the lines of, “You’re not allowed to think that way, you’re completely wrong, so listen to us and stop it already.” You can go here and here for fairly typical examples of head-shaking, and for an official article from CBMW, go here).
One of the things her excellent article brings out is our wrongful use of the Slippery Slope. Uh, if my old blogs were still alive, you could go through them and find “Slippery Slope” in one out of ten entries, especially in regards to the evils of believing whatever it was I asserted was terribly dangerous, feminism (meaning anything that was anti-patriarchal) being the chief offender, second only to postmodernism.
How funny it is that I find myself realizing that postmodernism is no less a boogey man than modernism was (every human age has it’s strengths and it’s weaknesses, for goodness sake, why should postmodernism be any different?), and that includes the fact that I’m feeling pretty feminist, too (if feminism is simply the belief that women and men are equal and should be treated that way [note: no one is denying they are different, mind you]).
And as for the Slippery Slope, turns out there wasn’t one there after all. It just sounded good to say it that way—not to mention that simply thinking that scary ice-laden roof was there, that if I set one toe on it down I would go crashing down and that would be the end of me, effectively keeps a person from asking soul-searching Bible-digging questions about his/her beliefs.
A brief quote on the fallacy of Slippery Slopes, taken from the above mentioned article that I highly recommend you read in full:
…Many evangelicals point to thousands of years of patriarchy as proof that patriarchy is an essential part of God’s creation. Yet slavery, which we have now rejected, was as universal as patriarchy, and the Christian church has rightfully rejected it.
The abolition model is much more useful than the slippery slope. “Slippery slope” is actually the name of a logical fallacy, described by Aristotle, in which a series of events is traced back to an earlier event without any proven causation. I can’t possibly be the only evangelical who thinks that it’s odd that a logical fallacy should become the chosen metaphor of evangelicals whose primary concern is to see the world as God sees not, not as “the culture” sees it.
As a metaphor, the slippery slope is loaded with associations. It suggests a certain obliviousness on the part of the people who go over it; the implication is that Christians who sign on to egalitarian points of view don’t know that they are being deceived by secular cultural norms. And the metaphor conveys a sense of irreversibility: once you’ve gone down the slippery slope, you can never claw your way back up to the top…
Filed under: Conservative Christian-ism, On Women
Excellent article. Hee hee.
Actually there might be a slippery slope because it seems I stepped on something and slid waaaayyyy down. As have quite a few other conservative Christians, based on what I’ve read on the Internet. But it doesn’t seem to me like I stepped on a slippery slope. It seems like I opened a door which led to a new freedom and grace I hadn’t known before. The freedom to be me. The grace to leave behind all the legalistic expectations which didn’t fit me. I’m in a place of gentle invitation and challenge now, not in a place where a dictator pushes me around. A place where life unfolds in exciting ways just as it did before - so I don’t feel like I lost anything which was important to keep.
Anyway, about women - I don’t understand how complementarian women can think there’s a slippery slope. They are already at the bottom. Where does this slope lead? To becoming an animal? How else could complementarian women get lower than they are now? The only way to go is up - to take Jesus’ hand and walk up the stairs he leads us up to where we have the dignity and respect God created us to have.
When defending my pagan Christmas tree, I began to look at closer at the text of Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16-17 in a new way. I saw these verses as Paul giving me permission to make Christianity relevant to the culture in which I lived. I can honor my heritage and family traditions and still be a Christian.
.
More recently, I have been struck by the fact that my entire Christian life, I have read the Bible is if it were written to white, Europeans in modern day America. As my family becomes increasingly culturally diverse, I have come to realize that this is an inadequate way to approach Scripture. Words have different meanings in different cultures. Culture is a form of non-verbal communication. The article by Susan Weiss Bauer went a long way towards clearing my thinking about the issue of culture and the Bible. “The believers of the New Testament are told to live within the structures of their society.”
.
Of course, now I had to add another book, Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender, to my already ridiculously long Amazon.com Wish List. Perhaps sanity will reign one day and bookcases will not line every spare wall in my home, but it is not this day.
I’ve heard it’s a good book, Julie! Prof Stackhouse gave the hayward lectures at acadia divinity college when i was there that eventually became this book, and while i really appreciated his approach, there were some red flags raised by a few students and by me about his ideas. i’d be interested to hear your thoughts when you’ve read it!
Mike
[...] was reading Molly’s many posts on women, patriarchy, male rule, and her ongoing recovery. Molly is absolutely brilliant and I encourage you to take the [...]
Thanks for another great post, and for the references to more books I need to buy! I’m having conflicting feelings…I feel encouraged to know that there are other Christian women out there who I can identify with on the subjects of “feminism, complementarianism, etc.”, but I am disheartened by some of the comments I read by the complementarians who disagree, and think that an egalitarian view is “dangerous”. It’s hard to be in this place…
I haven’t read that book either, but I want to now, Julie and Mike.
.
Keer, thanks for sending it to me (HAT TIP!!!!!!!!! (secondary HT, since a sweet woman sent me a copy of it in the mail, then another friend emailed it to me, at which point I promptly forgot to blog about it, and then Keer reminded me! lol)…
.
Helen,
Yeah, me too. It didn’t feel like falling off a cliff, it felt like walking through a door into a wide green pasture.
.
Julie, those are great observations. I’m much in the same place…wanting to study rightly, yet realizing how much preconception/assumption I’ve brought to the table…
.
More than Stone, that was one amazing post. Wow. That’s going to have me thinking for awhile.
.
Stephanie, my wish list is equally depressing…lol… I need to change my sidebar recommended books, too, as I’ve got five million new ones to add… LOL…
And, yes, on being in this place. It can be a hard spot to be in within the conservative Christian world.
For someone waaaay out of this loop on this stuff, what does the Complimentarian set believe different than the Egalitarian set? Google doesn’t know. But I know you guys do.
I think at some level, much of the time, the reasons female subordinationists react so strongly against egalitarians is that they are acting not in the spirit, but in the flesh. To have one’s position threatened - especially when one has benefited from it so greatly - is not a pleasant thing. The hierarchalists have a LOT to lose - power, prestige, position - if they can’t be the ones in charge anymore. They scramble for justification, and the “slippery slope” argument is quite handy.
The ones that are the nastiest are like cornered animals, striking out blindly to wound (”clearly, egalitarians don’t believe in the inerrant word of God,” “clearly, you are twisting the scriptures to suit yourself,” “clearly, you are in rebellion,” yada yada yada.) I myself have been called an “agent of the evil one.”
Maybe I’m living under a rock, but I don’t see ANY other theological disagreement engender such anger, hostility, and emotion. The same people who can “agree to disagree” on paedobaptism vs adult baptism, Calvinism vs arminianism, etc, will resort to disrespect, name calling, attacks, and even lies about egalitarians. After observing this go on (and on and on) for a number of years, it is very clear to me that the majority of hierarchalists (and I know there are exceptions) are simply trying to retain their privilege and power.
Maria, complementarians believe that men are ontologically created to lead and initiate, and women are ontologically created to follow and respond. That means that mens and womens roles are very different, and that women may not lead in the church (and some believe, even in society) and that the husband has authority over the wife.
.
Egalitarians believe that the divine mandate is the same for both (dominion over the earth, the great commission, etc.) and that it is giftings and calling that determine activities, not “gender roles.” Egalitarians believe in mutuality in marriage, that both partners submit to one another and live sacrificially for one another. Egalitarians, despite complementarian claims to the contrary, do believe there are differences between men and women. Egals just don’t believe those differences lead to role segregation.
Mike, are you willing to share those red flags?
There’s the pop version of postmodernism and then there’s the philosophy. I disagree with the philosophy a la Lyotard. But then he did believe Christianty was obsolete basically. The pop version - well it’s become a buzzword. Not the boogey man because my observation is most people don’t know what postmodernism is anyway. But it sounds cool I suppose.
I’m off to read a truck load of articles…
I relate to all of you.
How is that for a good people pleasing statement?
Light M. - THANKS!! A follow up question, then: So then what is the difference between Complms. and the straight-up Patriarchy and/or Hierarchalist crowd? And (last one!) which group claims the “help-meet/help-mate” terminology?
- I’m *so* with you and Molly on the “slippery slope” copout. Its overused and often baseless.
(I’ve been more tuned into debates about homosexuality and women’s ordination in the church than more general Christian sub-culture-wars about gender roles in the day-to-day. That’s why I’m needing the tutorial on this one. Thanks again!)
keer,
sure. Sadly it was several years ago and so my memory fades a bit, but here’s the generic:
Prof. Stackhouse’s lectures were entitled “Gospel Priorities and Holy Pragmatism.” Out of these lectures the book “Finally Feminist” was written (i think it’s pretty much a transcript of the lectures). My concern with Prof. Stackhouse’s contentions was that i believed it reduced the gospel with regard to peacemaking and justice, that is, that it seemed to me his elucidation of the gospel was overly simplistic, and that its broader aspects were not necessarily employed or engaged.
for example, one of Prof. Stackhouse’s interactions seemed to say that if, for instance, a church that is set in a complementarian position, that for the sake of the gospel, egalitarianism should not be talked about to such a church, in that it may do more harm than good. This, for me, softened the gospel elements of equality that i see as an egalitarian as well as exacerbating the simplistic ideal that the gospel is merely salvation of souls, or something of the like. I’m not sure John would agree with the way i’ve presented him, so i have to keep saying “seems” and “in my opinion”
We also had a disagreement about what it means to live as kingdom people…i was asking a question about future life in the kingdom and how it applies now…if we’re to live as kingdom people, what does this mean about our understanding of equality, but we didn’t get far on that.
not sure if that helps or not. i guess my problem was that prof. stackhouse, in my opinion
didn’t go far enough with his understanding of egalitarianism as part of the gospel.
peace in Christ,
Mike
The term complementarian and patriarchalist are synonymous in their starting point: gender-based authority and leadership in the church and home. The former term came into use in the 80’s, I believe, because the latter had such negative connotations in the popular culture. So it’s really just a PR/marketing thing, LOL. Different segments of the movement will use differing titles. Then you have “hard” and “soft” of each. The “hard” ones are seen as more extreme, e.g., women should not work outside the home, women should have no authority over a man even in the secular world, women should not vote, etc., vs “soft,” which some of the “hard” people sneer at as being too wimpy. Some patriarchalists wear the term proudly. Others prefer complementarian.
.
The terms hierarchalist and female subordinationist are terms used by egalitarians who want to use a term that is more accurately descriptive of the movement.
.
I don’t know who claims the term “helpmate,” “helpmeet,” but I do know this. The correct term is helpmeet, not helpmate. But because it’s not an ordinary everyday word, people get it confused with helpmate, which has much more a subordinate connotation. But if you look at the Hebrew, it’s ezer kenegdo, or a help (ezer - same word used of God as our helper, rescuer) equal to (kenegdo).
LightM - Thanks for taking the time to explain. I’m getting a better picture of all this.
.m.
Maria, consider picking up a copy of “Discovering Biblical Equality.” It’s a big fat book, but don’t let that intimidate you. Each chapter is self-contained, and it’s easy to dip into and read just certain chapters. There are a couple of chapters that cover the history of both the complementarian and egalitarian movements for the past couple hundred years. It’s really helpful in gaining an understanding of “where we’ve been” to put today’s debates into context.
I have been astounded, even though I used to be a complementarian, that this issue that many use to define liberal versus conservative. I was told by a pastor that every denomination that is liberal began the slide to liberalism with this issue. He can’t prove that, and it is a nice piece of revisionist history to support unquestioning allegiance to complementarianism (or authoritarianism), but i think he really believed it. And, with that belief, it made it impossible to discuss the scriptures on the issue. It’s sad, but very sincere individuals, because of a fear of “liberalism,” however they define it, drives them to be more focused on what they believe to be history and culture than they are on the Word of God, and all the while they will claim that it is the person who questions complementarianism who turns their eye from the scripture.
Helen wrote:
“Anyway, about women - I don’t understand how complementarian women can think there’s a slippery slope. They are already at the bottom.”
As someone who probably falls closer to the complementarian position than the egalitarian position (though I firmly refuse to be placed in any “camp”
I don’t think that I do reside at the bottom of any slope.
I’ve typed and re-typed a comment a few times and I think I’m just going to leave it at this for now. I don’t really want to debate this. I’m good friends with some egalitarians and I’m also a big fan of a history curriculum written by one
and I really don’t think that the positions have to be miles apart. Or maybe it’s just me and my hyper allergic reaction to labels……
Does complementarian automatically equal patriarchalist?
Btw, kind of along the lines of Carla’s comment, I’d like to ask that we all be REALLY careful how we characterize the other side. Stuff along the lines of, “anyone who believes differently is stupid,” (though NO ONE has said that) is not conduscive to REAL conversation.
.
It’s admittedly hard to do in the limited world of blog comment boxes, lol, but if we can walk extra carefully, even though it can be annoying (meaning, I freely admit that I much prefer just shooting it out blunt, myself), I think that the end product of a good conversation is *always* worth the extra care it took to get it, at least in the long run.
.
Just as it’s maddeningly annoying to have people spouting that anyone who is not a patriarchalist is an abortion-loving man-hating femi-nazi, it’s equally annoying to have egalitarians saying that all comps/pat’s are idiots (and though that may not be said here, I’ve read egalitarian blogs where that IS most emphatically said).
.
My apologies to any complementarians that have been offended by the conversation here so far. I hope you can assume the best about each commenter (meaning, if it comes off offensive to you, please assume that their tone was intended to be kind until proven otherwise). I hope that you will feel welcomed to add in your perspective on the Bauer article. If we can all just be extra-extra-careful in how we choose to word our thoughts (ultra-respectful, I mean), we may have the blessing of participating in a conversation that actually goes somewhere.
It’s sad, but very sincere individuals, because of a fear of “liberalism,” however they define it, drives them to be more focused on what they believe to be history and culture than they are on the Word of God, and all the while they will claim that it is the person who questions complementarianism who turns their eye from the scripture.
)
.
So, so true, and really, I’ve seen this is sooooo many areas other than this, it’s beyond funny.
.
I honestly have no idea what I am these days LOL. (Hi, Carla!
Carla, thanks for your comment. Sorry if I was disrespectful.
.
This topic frustrates me because to me it seems so obviously wrong that women should have limitations placed on them just because they are women. To me it seems like one of a list of lies that satan has sold [some of] the church. Maybe it was an easy sell because the buyers were men. It makes me mad when male complementarian leaders (and husbands) say “Oh, but it’s not easy to be in charge” - blah blah blah.
Helen,
I guess I see that as CHRISTIANS we have “limitations” placed on us. Being a servant is limiting me from what I want to do sometimes but it is what I should do and I can make the choice to do it joyfully. On Sunday mornings I sit with the kids while my dh plays bass at the front of the church. It isn’t because by singing I’d be doing anything wrong or because my “place” is in the congregation (I won’t say “pew” because we don’t have them). Rather it is because he is the only bassist and I’m not the only one who sings. It makes the most sense from the serving perspective for me to serve my children at this time by teaching them how to sit still (and oh, how long it takes to teach some of them that!) while he serves in a musical capacity. We have a friends who have made the opposite decision (the husband sits with the kids while she plays music) because it makes the most sense in the area in which they serve. We both come from “conservative” churches but it has nothing to do with that. See how some times 4+4 can seem like 10?
.
Back to Susan Wise Bauer: I suspected that we differed theologically and I still bought her curriculum. I actually prefer to cast my own slant on the history rather than buy a curriculum that does that for me. HOTW allows that for me. We are young earth creationists but I found that was easily put in the Volume 1 by ME and I preferred to be the one to do that. I’m a “tweaker” when it comes to curriculum so it doesn’t really bother me that I leave things out of her book if I don’t like it (I didn’t like the Abraham bit in Volume 1) or if I add things into it. On the other hand, if people aren’t “tweakers” and they want a history curriculum that follows exactly what they believe then I believe it is fair enough that they should know what she believes so that they can evaluate that. Why is it any different than someone who isn’t Reformed asking if Reformed doctrine comes through into the text in a particular book. Or someone deciding against Rod and Staff because they aren’t passifists. Like it or not, homeschooling is a “market” these days and there is a lot to choose from. Making a decision to go with a curriculum that fits ones’ bent best is a decision we can make with such a vast array of materials. I’ll stick to my convoluted version of SOTW myself right now, though.
Carla, we’ve discussed this in the past on this blog, re. the difference between a choice of taking a low position versus being literally *made* lower.
.
For the highly patriarchal camp, if they’re saying that women need to be under male headship as daughters and then as wives, that being female involves a *permanent* (non-chosen) subjection, then…that is much different than saying one chooses to be in a lower place sometimes.
.
That is, rather, saying that something in their very design requires them to occupy the lower place—which would mean that something about them is lower. Women have been considered inferior by Christian leaders all through history up until recently (and recently are still taught to be inferior in rank by virtue of gender, yet somehow equal all at the same time… But there are questions to be asked of those who say, “You are equal, but you are also permanently inferior in rank.” I mean, can such a thing logically be?).
.
You’re probably not interested in wading through my rambling, lol, but all those posts (and all the leaders they quote) are found in the Women section of my catagories lists (and the comments are really interesting too).
.
Btw, I’m not an egalitarian or a comp…I’m standing on the sidelines with a whole lot of questions.
Warmly,
Molly
Molly,
I’ll see if I can do some wading some time this week :). I think that this is where it all comes back to what the Bible actually says rather than what tradition dictates. The kids and I are wading through the topic of Spanish and Porteguese explorers in the New World right now. My girls (9.5 and 7.5 FWIW) are rightly appalled at what has been done in the name of Christianity. They’re angry and it’s good that they are. Women have been treated awfully by people in the name of Christianity. So have South Americans, Chinese people, African people….. There is a danger at running to an opposite extreme to make up for the astrosities of the church. The Spanish robbed and looted Inca temples and melted their idols into gold bars. To make up for that do we put their idols in the church? Well, no, of course not. Likewise, I try to be very careful to not react to true victimization of women (remember the “rule of thumb”? sigh) by swinging too far the other way. I’ve really stopped reading anything other than the Bible on this topic. Many “HOw to be a wife” “How to be a godly woman” books elevate application over principle.
You know…the more I understand terms the more I think we are probably closer to egalitarian. I resist the term, somewhat…because of some of the militant connotations. I’d rather say that we just…are. Just a couple who love each other, who honor, respect each other, who serve each other. If we were patriarchalist, I would have no problem submitting…he’s THAT nice.
Another thought that perhaps should be considered. If we are “rethinking” various terms because they are either passe or “so yesterday!” then shouldn’t we rethink the word “feminist?” Talk about a word with negative connotations! So, what could that word be? “Post Feminist?” “Daughter of God?” I think that is why some very popular and loving and good Christian egalitarian women find such dismay and angst among the evangelical (another word which is passe according to Barna) world…they use the word Feminist. I just think it’s time for a new word! Make one up, Molly!
Oooh, good thinking, Holly!
(post-feminist…hmmmm…me likes it)…
Had a thought along these lines as I was driving around town today.
I don’t WANT to be the one IN CHARGE, here at home or at some sort of workplace. When I did work, I was quite happy being a peon who just did her job. I didn’t desire to be the boss at all. 
Same goes for at home.
.
So many times the “hard” complementarians assume that any of us women who are “softer” or, heaven forbid, egalitarians are just chomping at the bit to be The Leader of Our Home. They assume that we want to be in charge. They assume that we are assertive both at home and want to be out in the workplace as well. They assume that we want to be The Boss.
.
For me personally, nothing could be farther from the truth.
.
My personality is such that if there is a way to be in the background, I’m there. I like to fade into the woodwork. I hate making decisions, though it is nice to be consulted.
.
Anyway, it may not have anything to do with anything, but it was just something that popped into my head today - another assumption that is frequently made about us non-patriarchalists.
Well said, Keer. It’s this false dilemna given where you are either: meek and submissive-to-men OR you are constantly trying to get your way and selfish and angry and stomping on men whenever you get.
.
Yet Scripture COMMANDS us to respect eachother, to love eachother…
.
So, for non-patriarchal woman, we are called to love and respect…our husbands…our children…others we come into relationship with…everyone. Not because we are women, but just because that’s what Christians are called to be like.
.
I came back, specifically, because I want to further define “what we are.” I do this because I realize I don’t live in a vacuum…that people actually DO read what I say and that they will hold me to it in the future.
I still don’t know what we “are,” couplewise.
Sometimes I don’t even want to take the time to figure it out - because it just works so well. Don’t want to mess with it! 
I think we live like egalitarians. I am honored and served in amazing ways. We have a lot of mutural serving and sharing. But at the core, I believe that my husband is my head, and if push ever came to shove (which it rarely does) and someone needs to be “in charge,” he is.
I still do not know what I think (and neither does he)regarding whether there is a heirarchical authority structure which God deemed best for the survival of society and the happiness of families. It seems to me that God put something into a man that is deeply fulfilled by providing and protecting, and many things into a woman that can only be fulfilled by bearing and nurturing children.
.
No one needs to respond here…
… I just wanted to clarify my muddy position. 
.
I’m done. Carry on.
Holly, I know you didn’t need anyone to respond…
but thought I would anyway.
I think I am much like you. I dont’ think about “roles” in our marriage, who is in charge, etc. What we have, and what ever we do, works REALLY well. My husband serves better than me, quite frankly!! He is amazing. We questions each other when needed, consult each other most of the time… just cause we are a team and ONE after all… it works, what ever it is. A lot of love I guess!
I agree with that society thought too… as in it does seem to be true (men protecting women nurturing), but am tending to think its more just… how we are, generally… which alwalys leaves room for non-typical… its been so neat to ruminate and ponder all of this. If for no other reason to see better where everyone comes from and practice the law of love and grace!!
And Renee…..now that Molly will be gone…we can over take her blog!
Fun, fun, fun!
Oh, me! Pick me! I want to take over too! I can be patriarchal, or, um, egalitarian, or, um whatever those big words mean.
How about ‘patrilatarian’? I think that defines me, too. Our marriage is like you describe yours, Holly - a natural synergy of hearts, desiring to love and serve one another, but I do believe he is the ulitmate head - he would be in charge if and as necessary. We both encourage and spur one another on, though, very much. Works for us!
.
I’m a firm believer in delegated spiritual authorities, though - not in a right wing way, but in a loving, honourable, submitting kind of way! I’ll have to blog on my position sometime….
.
Valerie
[...] (and men!!) out there who seem to be wrestling through the same issue, both in real life and on the internet. by chewymom @ 7:05 am. Filed under This and That, Biblical Thinking [...]
Ummmm, wow, I find Molly’s thoughts interesting even though I don’t agree with her, but that first comment up there…yikes!
Neither my husband nor I view me (or other women) as some sort of lower order of humanity. My role is different from his, but no less important. God created us differently as male and female, and gave us different “jobs” to do, but that doesn’t mean that hubby is Mr. Perfect super-man and I’m way down on the level just above a donkey.
Gracious!
Sometimes it seems to me we are all speaking completely different languages. What y’all are saying complimentarianism and patriarchy mean totally do not go along with what I believe or have experienced as someone in that “complimentarian camp”. Kinda the way people view “quiverfull” and my experience of that lifestyle being so different from what they think I must be experiencing. Or the way non-Christians view Christianity and how my experience with God is different from what their assumptions about Christianity are.
Hey Margaret, sometimes I think we’re all speaking a completely different language, too…and if we were all in the same room and could talk through until completion we wouldn’t have such difficulties.
Valerie, that is a funny word!
I can scarcely pronounce it! 