How to Solve the Gender Debate

As a general rule of thumb I try not to engage in Facebook or Twitter debates, but occasionally and by occasionally I mean often, I can’t help myself. Not all Facebook debates are doomed, I recently engaged in a meaningful back and forth with a friend on gun control that ended on a good note of understanding. However my number one pet peeve in debating others on serious issues is that frequently the topic at hand is not really addressed and straw men are set only to be easily defeated.

Recently my school, Biola University, had a week with chapels and lectures on gender, faith, and culture. Now first let me admit that if there were awards given for Chapel attendance I’d probably only get a participation ribbon, except that I may not show up to the awards ceremony. However, as I saw the Gender Faith Culture week develop on the twitterbookmultiverse things seemed to get pretty crazy. Although breaking up the Christian view of gender into two camps may not be the most helpful distinction, it is what we have. And if I had to pick a side I would say that I am complementarian. I have come to this conclusion through studying the relevant texts in the Bible. I cannot read the Bible and not see some sort of distinction between men and women— primarily in the Church. However, it didn’t seem that this is how others opinions were developed on the twitterbookmultiverse.

By and large it seems that the arguments being made on both sides of the gender debate are not being made on the grounds of exegesis. Typically when I engage others on this issue it becomes a smear campaign. Common arguments typically involve linking complementariansim to misogyny and oppression, and there are a hundred other poorly constructed arguments on the other side. It is true that there are misogynistic complementarians and there are egalitarians who don’t take Scriptural authority seriously, however these arguments should never be used in constructing a theology of gender.

This debate must be settled on the ground of exegesis and exegesis alone. If an individual holds a view for a reason other than an exegetical one, we are to point them back to scripture. The rhetoric must be to avoid eisegesis, not to avoid certain readings of the text to which we ethically object. This is a theological issue and it ought to be handled on the grounds of exegesis. The only way believers can have a meaningful discussion on this topic is by laying down their ad hominem straw men and picking up their Bibles to see what the text says. There will always be misogynistic complementarians and liberal egalitarians who don’t take the text as serious as you, but neither of these two groups accurately display the systems which they represent. The accusation of “Chauvinist” or “Worldly” or whatever must ultimately be a hermeneutical critique, not an ethical critique, and we must communicate it as such. My plea to Biola students and to all believers is to settle this debate on exegesis and any critique brought against these positions must be hermeneutical critiques.