Why Complementarians “See” Male Leadership as God’s Design

Why Complementarians "See" Male Leadership as God's Design: The Psychology of Perception (Seeing What We Already Believe)

All of us have blind spots. I think every one of us, as human beings, can safely conclude that we don't know everything. Some of the things we do not understand today, we may understand tomorrow. Some of the things we do understand today, we may understand better (i.e. differently) tomorrow.

One of the reasons we all have blind spots is a result of something called "top-down processing." Top-down processing refers to the way we experience the world around us. We do not, in fact, see the world as it is. We see it as it is meaningful to us. In other words, we see the world through the lenses of our past experience, previous learning, deeply held beliefs, assumptions and expectations.

Details in the environment that do not align with our assumptions can be missed altogether – due to top-down processing.

Details in the environment that do not align with our deeply held beliefs can be misinterpreted so that our beliefs are not shaken – due to top-down processing.

What complementarians do not seem to recognize is that top-down processing impacts how people read the Bible. Please allow me to explain.

Before a word can be translated it must be interpreted. In my grammar text for New Testament Greek, for example, one verb (ago) can have multiple meanings: "lead," "go," "depart," "guide" or even "celebrate a feast." What determines our interpretation? The immediate context of the word and top-down processing. In other words, our interpretation consists of what we expect the word to mean given its immediate context. Our expectations come from our own previous learning and experience.

Imagine being a Bible translator in a culture that assumes women to be morally and intellectually inferior to men. (This would be true, for example, of all the men who helped translate the King James Version of the Bible.) Then imagine coming across a particular Greek word in the Bible that refers to a woman. The word is "prostatis." This is the noun form of the verb "proistemi." You can translate this word to mean "someone who presides over others," "a woman set over others," or simply "someone who gives aid to others" (i.e. a helper). Because of your previous learning and past experience in a deeply patriarchal culture, any interpretation assigning authority to a woman would simply not be cognitively available to you. In other words, the possibility may never enter your mind.  It would be unthinkable, literally.

Interpretation leads to translation, and now henceforth, Phoebe shall be known as a "helper" in the Church at Cenchrea, rather than a "leader" (Romans 16:2 NKJV).

Another Greek word used to describe the role of Phoebe in Romans 16 is "diakonos."  It could be translated "servant, deacon, or minister." Equipped with an understanding of top-down processing, I'd be willing to bet you can accurately guess which word was selected for the King James Version of the Bible.

Complementarians have told me that contextual factors in Romans 16 dictate that Phoebe must have simply been a "servant" and "helper" rather than a "leader," "deacon" or "minister." I wonder what those contextual factors are, since the passage is simply an introduction of Phoebe and a commendation of her work in the church.

I was reading a complementarian blog earlier today. In it, the author explains that egalitarians go awry because we rely on a subjective understanding of the Bible's original context. What we should be doing, he says, is relying on "the written word of God" because its meaning is "concrete."i Apparently, this blogger doesn't recognize that the "written word of God" is also subject to human interpretation, which is determined in part by top-down processing.

Similarly, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood states that a Christian's subjective interpretation of God's call to ministry should never contradict the clear instruction of God's written word.ii Does this statement presume that God's written word is not subjectively interpreted? Apparently so, and that is a significant blind spot.

Wayne Grudem, well-known complementarian, says that Christian egalitarians undermine the inerrancy of the word of God.iii I don't believe that's an accurate accusation. What we are questioning is not the inerrancy of God or his word, but rather the subjective interpretation of complementarian believers, who are human beings, with blind spots that exist due to top-down processing.

i http://jacoballee.com/1/archives/09-2012/1.html

ii http://cbmw.org/core-beliefs/

iii http://jacoballee.com/1/archives/09-2012/1.html

taken from HERE

Pretty good article. If I understand correctly, you brought this article to say those who disagree with WO has a blind spot. If so, this is not really meant to start a discussion right? Your just making a statement.

I think this "blind spot" is not only for WO but for all doctrines. Even further, I think we all have "blind spots" including me. Realizing how "blind" we are is a start to begin seeing.

Just the other day I saw the latest documentary of Warren Jeffs
entitled "Prophets prey". The sad realization authorities had to face after they went thru years and many attempts trying to stop this predatory schemes over 10 thousands of people...is the sad realization that these people are deeply "blind" and theirs nothing they can do about it.
https://www.solarmovie.is/watch-prophet-s-prey-2015.html

Only Jesus can heal blindness especially denominational deep blindness.

The article raises a very good point. Elle also raises a good point that this sword cuts in all directions, egalitarianism included.

Being humble and teachable as little children which is what is needed for us to be in the Kingdom is what scripture teaches, and in that we lack greatly.

You are teaching heresy

We have missed you jsot. Welcome back!

Indeed!

Higher Criticism is alive and well in Adventism!

Are you saying that translators have no bias?

Of course, translators have bias. That is why the Bible must be taken in its entirety to determine correct doctrine. Taking one or two ambiguous word choices as proof that thousands of years of biblical direction and example should be disregarded is clear evidence of interpretive contamination by topical culture.

How shall we search the Scriptures? Shall we drive our stakes of doctrine one after another, and then try to make all Scripture meet our established opinions, or shall we take our ideas and views to the Scriptures, and measure our theories on every side by the Scriptures of truth? Many who read and even teach the Bible, do not comprehend the precious truth they are teaching or studying. Men entertain errors, when the truth is clearly marked out, and if they would but bring their doctrines to the word of God, and not read the word of God in the light of their doctrines, to prove their ideas right, they would not walk in darkness and blindness, or cherish error. Many give the words of Scripture a meaning that suits their own opinions, and they mislead themselves and deceive others by their misinterpretations of God's word. As we take up the study of God's word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside. Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. It was the unwillingness of the Jews to give up their long established traditions that proved their ruin. They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their expositions of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. {RH, July 26, 1892 par. 3}

"if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded"

Amen.

And some day these long held beliefs will be overturned as the Bible shows! Male headship is not Biblical the way it is portrayed.

The quinquennial meeting of the worldwide general conference has rejected WO three times.

"...when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body." ChL 1.8


How long will this worldly cultural view be "stubbornly maintained"?
The "straight testimony" is being given, must the Church be Shaken before this divisive rebellion can end?

And this proves that the rejection was not motivated by culture? No.

And this proves that the rejection was not motivated by culture? No. [/quote]


"...when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment MUST NOT be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. NEVER should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body." ChL 1.8


According to Sister White, you are advocating rebellion against the will of God!

Do you believe the SOP?

prodigal - you can proof text what you like. Perhaps you should take all that Sister White wrote, and perhaps you might get a different view. You can accuse me of rebellion if you like, but would that be truth or blindness on your part? Will God ever remove the GC from its position?

The Lord Jesus will always have a chosen people to serve Him. When the Jewish people rejected Christ, the Prince of life, He took from them the kingdom of God and gave it unto the Gentiles. God will continue to work on this principle with every branch of His work. When a church proves unfaithful to the word of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear important responsibilities. But if these in turn do not purify their lives from every wrong action; if they do not establish pure and holy principles in all their borders, then the Lord will grievously afflict and humble them, and, unless they repent, will remove them from their place and make them a reproach. {14MR 102.1} Read the whole manuscript.

As to 9T261, read the entire quotation. You find: I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man's judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. Did this occur in San Antonio? Can you clearly say no? Was there pressure put on delegates to vote a certain way? YES. The whole voting fiasco brings up doubt as to the voting of ones conscience. There are many who find the vote in San Antonio to be trusted as the true will of God because of the irregularities, and also for the fear of delegates loosing their jobs if they did not follow they conference president.

Call it rebellion if you wish? But if God's work is being suppressed, then who are the ones actually in rebellion?

The fact is that WO was voted down at two previous Quinquennial General Conference Assemblies. The vote in San Antonio should never have taken place. Each subsequent vote is another act of rebellion.

It is interesting to note that the decision to include such a vote in a Quinquennial Assembly, is made by a "few men". Something Sister White warned against.

So you are telling us that since the vote should not have occurred, then the vote is illegitimate? I agree, that a "few men" brought the vote forward, but for what purpose? In order for the General Conference to take away from the Unions that which belongs only to the Unions. The "No" vote actually maintains the status quo and Ted Wilson confirms. A "Yes" vote would have taken away the rights the Unions. It was in reality an attempted power grab by the GC.

Also notice the weasel-wording, the vote had nothing to do of whether there is a Biblical basis for ordaining women, that was already sustained by the TOSC. The vote was whether the "Divisions" could move independently, ignoring the fact that the "Divisions" do not even have the authority to choose who will be ordained as that is the perogative of the "Unions".

Who is really in rebellion? Who is really trying to grab power? Who is trying to control the people. As 9T261 says, Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed.

Think of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, a type small group of men, All SDA leaders. Think of W.H. Reid, Roy Allen Anderson, and LeRoy Froom, a small group of men who have changed the doctrine of the church. Most probably a small group of men have been bending the control of the GC, which some of the people recognize.

APL, this discussion has been repeated many times on different threads.
I think we both know, neither of us will change the others mind. I have no wish to engender harsh words or feelings, there has been too much of that already.

My views on the matter are adequately represented by the words of Sister White below. Whether you accept them or find a way to make them of no effect is your choice.
May God guide us both into all Truth.


General Conference in Session Highest Authority

"I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work, and to say what plans should be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body .... God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing, is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church, in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work."--Testimonies for the Church 9:260, 261. – {ChL 1.8}

Yes - and you have ignored that there are a number of "one man" ruler now in the church. We have seen the intimidation of certain delegations. Vote against the "one man" and you may loose your job. Does that engender confidence in the validity of the vote? And TNCW injecting his opinion over the vote. The lack of the ability to vote without coming under scrutiny, again a threat to ones position. The rudeness of people against a former GC president. The evidence is there to question as did EGW in her day if the GC is the voice of God.

And recent news of the GC exerting their kingly rule over new areas of the church is truly frightening.

EGW is clear, When a church proves unfaithful to the word of the Lord, whatever their position may be, however high and sacred their calling, the Lord can no longer work with them. Others are then chosen to bear important responsibilities. The SDA GC is not exempt.

Blessings APL,

This not a matter of perception, psychology or blind spots. It is strictly a matter of the Bible and the Bible only. The Bible clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 that the man is head of the women in the churches of Christ and that this is God's will. Yet, you refuse to listen to the clear dictates of the Bible.

This same passage, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, gives all humanity God's precept of top/down as you call it. The Father is head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and man is head of the woman. Period!

I hope all of God's people will accept God's will for their lives.

Really?

Galatians 3:25-29 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Do you believe it? I do!

While we should not disregard the past, age and repetition are not reliable guides.

There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. CW 35.2

or by faith in it. Sincerity will never save a soul from the consequences of believing an error. Without sincerity there is no true religion, but sincerity in a false religion will never save a man. I may be perfectly sincere in following a wrong road, but that will not make it the right road, or bring me to the place I wished to reach. The Lord does not want us to have a blind credulity, and call that the faith that sanctifies. The truth is the principle that sanctifies, and therefore it becomes us to know what is truth. We must compare spiritual things with spiritual. We must prove all things, but hold fast only that which is good, that which bears the divine credentials, which lays before us the true motives and principles which should prompt us to action.—Letter 12, 1890. 2SM 56.1

Yes really, APL!

You interpret texts out of context and so they don't carry the weight you hope to convey. You see, it is true that all are saved the same way! All must come to and through Christ to find salvation.

But, there are still different levels of authority, just like in Heaven! All the angels are equal before God as far as salvation works, but, there are still different levels of authority within the different orders of angels. Almost sounds like Priesthoods!

You never established the context of these quotes, asygo. Give us some examples of doctrines and practices that SDA's kept for a long time that turned out to be wrong.

I do not advocate "age and repetition" as a biblical foundation. Nor do I seek to reject new Light. What I do, wholeheartedly, reject is the rapidly increasing practise of higher criticism; whereby, the plainest declarations of scripture are spiritualized away in a flood of temporally skewed, cultural interpretations.

Taking a small number of debatable texts as proof against the ponderous weight
of numerous lessons that have been reiterated from beginning to end, can never lead
to greater Light.

Every verse, every reference, however old or oft repeated, however apparently antiquated or out of style, must be included and accounted for: only then can the Bible's teaching be known.

Here here! You go Prodigalone.

I don't like setting aside parts of Scripture, so I hasten to add: Every verse, every reference, however new or oft ignored, however apparently modern or stylish, must be included and accounted for: only then can the Bible's teaching be known.

Don't you agree?

Did you know that the Scriptures plainly declare that Phebe was a "diakonos" which is translated "minister" 20 out of its 31 occurrences?

Do you think it is possible that the Bible's translators could have been affected by temporal and cultural biases?

Do you know the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887? A deviation from the traditional view can sometimes lead to a leap in understanding truth. Understanding truth is not so much a matter of letting the ponderous weight of tradition overcome those pesky texts, but in discovering a framework that takes everything into account.

If you want more context, the references are there. But does anyone believe that there is any context such that we can conclude that we are infallible?

You ask for examples of SDA errors, as if our existence was not closely tied to an error in interpreting Daniel 8:14. So let's start with the erroneous belief that cleansing the sanctuary meant purifying the earth by fire. True, that was in the 1830's and 1840's, but that just shows the fallibility of our founders. I don't know anyone who believes they became infallible 20 years after that.

Then there's the Shut Door - that the door of mercy was forever closed to the world in the 1840's. That was wrong.

Several prominent leaders and members believed that there was a time long ago when Jesus did not exist. Some never accepted the truth about that.

There was a time of confusion regarding Sunday vs. Saturday as the Sabbath. Once Saturday was settled upon, there was still disagreement over the exact time to start.

I'll stop there. Just let me know if you need more proof of human fallibility.