Our religious feminist friends are fond of now claiming they believe in "complementarity" without hierarchy. They are beginning to warm to this idea that they are the true complementarians and that Complementarians are really just prettified hierarchicalists. But when pressed as to how men and women complement each other, well . . . now, we can't go around stereotyping, can we? These differences they loudly protest that they recognize and celebrate turn out to boil down to this: body parts and their immediate reproductive functions. There is no further implication, certainly no deeper symbolism to be had in the obvious physical bits that differentiate men and women.
Never mind that our skeletons differ, our muscular structures differ, our relative hormones differ -- never mind that even our brains are wired differently. No, this only results in stereotyping because, inevitably, there is the brawny woman who can lift a car or the man who is good at singing his infant son to sleep. And lets not get sidetracked by the argument about gifts. Whoever said possession of a gift automatically confers the right to exercise it when and where the recipient feels "called" so to do?
So it's really hard to determine what they think the legitimate differences are. Yet they claim to be the true complementarians. But, every once in a while, their slip shows. And it's then that we know my friend, Tony Esolen, is right to call them Indifferentists. For here we see that they really don't give a rat's right butt cheek for any differences, real or imagined. They don't give a fig about tradition or the deep reasons for those traditions. Nor do they care about God's labels, you know those awful "traditionalist" outmoded labels the church has used for two millennia. Yes, the ones that point us to the Church's relationship to Christ. Yes, THOSE labels:
I now pronounce you husband and wife ( I now pronounce you life partners would be even better) seal the covenant you have made to each other with a kiss.”
Yes, this is the latest from CBE's blog. Better even than husband and wife is the indifferent moniker of "life partner" with whom you may seal your "covenant" by a kiss.
Forgive me, but isn't "life partner" one of the designations preferred by homosexualists who play at pseudogamy?
Addendum: Lest you think I am exaggerating the ugliness of the Egalitarian vision for remaking the sexes, our correspondent above has returned with an additional comment:
I mean just look at how traditions have changed already I seldom hear Love Honor and Obey in marriage vows even in comp churches which is a good thing so hopefully we are moving in the right direction.
I guess at least one Egalitarian believes a wife should not Love and Honor her husband (we already know she shouldn't obey him, according to their lights). Let's see if anyone contradicts him in this. To his vision of marriage, all I can say in public is -- Ick, ick, ick, ick, ICK!