The problem has been compounded by the fact that some complementarians seem to shy away from using the term mutuality. Perhaps they would rather avoid the word than attempt to extricate it from egalitarian connotations. That’s too bad, because both the egalitarian effort to redefine the word, and the complementarian hesitation to wholly embrace it, obscure a profound biblical truth: Complementarity fosters mutuality at a far deeper level than sameness does.– Mary Kassian
Mary Kassian started a series called, Complementarity & Mutuality.
The comments were particularly interesting reading. She was called out on the terms that they tend to use regularly to define the differences between complementarian and egalitarian beliefs. The strange part to me? She tends to redefine ‘belief’ systems with her own terminology.
The points that were made is that you can’t find these terms like ‘sameness’ or ‘role-interchangeability’ outside the complementarian realm. These terms are not used within the Egalitarian circles, and makes it is confusing as to why they need to use them at all.
Mary Kassian basically said she couldn’t come up with better terminology, and how semantics are confusing. (shrugs) I guess that means they made up something, because they can’t figure out how better to describe it. It certainly takes much away from what some think she is trying to say.
I think most would find that explanation rather disingenuous.
I mean all you have to truly do is google the term Christian Egalitarian, and come up with a better definition that uses plain English without extras.
Let try that:
Christian egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.Makes a bit more sense than ‘sameness’ or ‘role-interchangeability’ doesn’t it? Most would be able to understand the term ‘mutuality’ within the above definition as well – without her make up words.
Readers seem confused between complementarian versus hierarchy
If you look a bit closer? Most of the questions to her were about hierarchy, and how that plays into life. Mary Kassian is forever stating that complementarian belief systems is not the same as hierarchy as some are describing it.
So why are they are always making these debates about complementarian compared to egalitarian? That doesn’t seem to be the debate at all. At least to her readers that have questions!
People are confused about what complementarian stand truly IS! How it is different from ‘traditionalism’ or ‘hierarchicalism’ as she quoted it.
If you notice the comments, questions, and explanations given most of the time on their information has more to do with what Mary Kassian terms as: ‘hierarchicalism wrapped in legalism’. Last time I checked? That has nothing to do with egalitarian beliefs.
Instead of getting defensive … stand up against these teachings that harm so many, and do so with more than a sentence or two stating that isn’t what you MEAN or how your beliefs work!
What it shows is that they have a HUGE hindrance in regards to their definition of what they believe. Her articles on strawman’s or complementarian’s for dummies don’t seem to be doing her position any justice. It seems she is to vague as to what it is – as opposed to what it isn’t.
Why do they keep presenting things as ‘complementarian versus egalitarian’ then? I would guess that is something she would rather discuss, but it should tell them something when they can’t get past the ‘hierarchical’ portion of the discussion. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what the difference is.
Maybe they can could make up some more words to make it more clear?! I wouldn’t recommend it, because their made up terminology thus far isn’t doing them any favors.