Angela-- My brief description has failed to show you what I found so fascinating.

In the discussion that I read, it was clear that complementarians and egalitarians were on common ground since they both expect mutuality from both partners, and in a very fraught situation they came to a meeting of minds on that basis. Of course, the larger disagreement remains. They still differ in whether they expect that sex is or is not a useful guide to the dynamics of a couple's mutuality, and in whether a unisex construct is harmful to the personal development of at least some people or not. Complementarians affirm both; egalitarians deny the first and have not yet thought about the second. I was impressed by the maturity of the posts from both of those positions.

Interestingly, the two other positions (patriarchalist, *feminist¹) were so stuck in their respective nightmares of relations between the sexes that they could not finally tolerate the amity of the complementarians and egalitarians at all. Persons of both extremes tried to break up the agreement of the two centrist positions, and their arguments were basically hardline appeals to suspicion and resentment. I have to say, I found the posts from both of those positions rather stuckist, wanting in ordinary conversational receptivity and emotional intelligence.

Taken as a whole, I read the dynamics of the four positions as closely analogous to the polarization by fear that leads, for example, to ethnic cleansing where extremists stoke so many fears in those at the center that it cannot hold and people who formerly got along as neighbours kill each other as enemies. In this case, any polarisation was stopped cold by centrist voices, both masculine and feminine, who basically quashed each successive attempt to reframe the intentions behind statements as something sinister. Rather than succumb to fears of slippery slopes, they just put up fences for safety, and got on with their business.

In the Christian context that concerns us here,² I think those in Christ know that reconciliation of the sexes is part of what Christ does, and that opposition to that reconciliation opposes his will. If there is doubt about that in the village, then we really need to have a discussion about this.

That said, Christian discussion about what lived paths to reconciliation there may be is reasonable and faithful. And here, all of the surprising knowledge that we have is relevant, so long as it promotes the unity of women and men in marriage.  Maybe something in the developmental pathways of men and women explains the dynamics of mutuality. Maybe the bare idea of "equality" has developmental powers that have been underestimated. Or maybe it is great for some important things but not adequate for other important things. Maybe there are more good dynamics among couples than we imagine, some of them a bit shocking. Perhaps there is a difference between the issues most common in a marriage of teenagers and in one between those somewhat older. Have we any reason to be afraid to know about these things? Have we any objection to looking at the sort of evidence that Adrian so often asks for?

Some of the most useful knowledge is simply about the difference between good faith and bad faith negotiations. Bad-- and bad faith-- negotiators try to frame everything as a sucker's choice for the other side. As far as possible, they hope to win a test of hardened wills. Can we not rise above this? Good-- and good faith-- negotiators try to make sense of the needs behind the expressed positions on both sides, since there is otherwise no way to get a mutual agreement. Where Christ is the basis, mutuality is the objective.

Of course, even quite Christian women and men will struggle with stubborn suspicion of the other sex for reasons that I trust our readings in attachment theory partially explain. But this is a human frailty that tempts us to sin, not healthy personal autonomy in relation to the opposite sex, and in Christ we should expose fearful fantasy as the counterfeit that it is. Sadly, there is also-- in persons of both sexes--  fear that is grounded in experience. This happens far more often than was once suspected, and we should not underestimate the struggle that many have with it. But healing and strengthening for them is not promoted by taking this as the normal situation of all.

Views that burn bridges between the sexes or block their traffic in either direction are gravely sinful. So I suspect that the better path for us is, not to help extremists to inflame our discussions, but on the contrary to oppose fear and prejudice, and just reopen the bridge we have in Christ. Something I'd like to see discussed is a response to John Piper's point³ that instructions for body parts and the bare idea of equality are not sufficient guidance for development into either the good men women need or the good women men need.

¹ *feminists = Christian feminists. It's less repetitious, and it draws a useful distinction between this subset and the wider worlds of Christianity and feminism. Meanwhile, as far as they go, I continue to find non-Christian feminist authors insightful. Julia Kristeva on women and work is especially useful.

² I have been favoured with the opportunity to discuss these issues with candid persons of both sexes and a spectrum of educated Muslim opinion from quite modernist to profoundly Islamist. It's rarely helpful to refer to Muslim opinion anywhere in the world as a sort of bloc. This topic does not seem to me to be an exception.

³ John Piper says all sort of other things too, and it is not my intention here to debate What John Piper Really Means. But his claim that the '"equality" is enough' position fails an important human interest demands an answer, even if we reject every version of complementarianism we know. There is no reason why both views could not be misleading about different important things.

Bowman

Yes it is interesting that complimentarianism is the common denominator of belief system between Islam and Christianity, which is why it worries me.. I make the distinction between men and women being inter-dependant and co-dependant as a working model of equality between genders and managerial styles.. So Pluralist will have regular experience of this in his multicultural setting as will all interfaith movements and churches.. The idea that a couple can have separate responsibilities , but the male has the final decision, could be seen as a double edged sword,"the yoke"? Again such statements were made in an all patriarchal society but God in making the first Judge a woman indicated at that point a role reversal. This example led the way to Christ promoting women in leadership, which paved the way to "persoanl responsibility" regardless of gender answerable to God.

Angela

Angela, Dave-- The contentious thread (not one of ours) that I mentioned in another post was superficially an argument between complementarians and egalitarians. In fact, both women and men of those two positions agreed on the awkward matter at hand. The wrangling came from men of patriarchal views who lumped everyone else with the feminists, and feminists who lumped the complementarians with the patriarchalists, over the objections of the egalitarian women who thought that absurd. That is, the complementarians and the egalitarians had a common ground that was invisible to people on the two extremes. Have you seen this fourway division of opinion elsewhere?

You can have equality and difference: equality as a road freed of unnecessary discriminatory obstacles in tasks and then let the folks get on with life.

In that sense, our [American] culture is demonic, for at its basis is comparison. Since comparison always, mathematically, leads to the experience and the knowledge of inequality, it always leads to protest. Equality is based on the denial of distinctions, but since they exist, the wish for equality calls to fight them, to force equalization on people, and, what is even worse, to refuse these distinctions, which are the essence of life. The person—man or woman—who hungers for equality is already emptied and impersonal because a personality is made of what distinguishes it from others and not submitted to the absurd law of equality. To the demonic principle of comparison, Christianity opposes love. . . . Equality cannot exist in this world because the world was created by love and not by principles. And the world thirsts for love and not equality.

At another place: Man looks for rules; a woman knows exceptions. But life is a continuous exception to rules. Wherever there is genuine life, there reigns not a rule but an exception. Man fights for rules. Woman has a living experience of the exception.

Alexander Schmemann, Journals

Do men and women in hierarchies lead in the same way? Because of la différence, a vote for OWE (or against WOE) may be a vote, not just on an equality proposition, but on the sensibility of leadership in the Church of England. Good people often claim that, of course, but let's think it through.

Another David points out that women-- I am sure that he realises that individual women and men do vary-- do not so connaturally think of organisations as hierarchies as men seem to do. My own experience roughly confirms what he, and before him Pluralist and maybe Stephen, have said. More men than women assume that any organisation that actually does things well is divided into the obeyed and the obedient and that in large organisations, this division is recursive, resulting in a hierarchy. That indeed is one of the subtexts of the interesting dispute between the Vatican and the LCRW mentioned below. The OWE/WOE question is not whether the Church of England will be formally hierarchical, but whether having hierarchs who are also women will usefully temper the way leaders lead in the church. TEC has women bishops, but it does not have a hierarchy with metropolitical authority as the English know it, so the American experience is an imperfect precedent for what England is now discussing.

Four problems--

(a) Those who consistently think hierarchically have a leadership ethic of reciprocal loyalty that can conflict with the servant leader ethic of those who think collaboration arises spontaneously and without permanent divisions into obeyed and obedient. The reverse is also true. Please note that both ethics are supported-- and opposed-- by rich moral discourses hat began in antiquity, but the way that they work out in practise now depends much on their actual situations, which only God can choose.

(b) The two ethics may not be equally effective in all classes of situations. One such class-- it is not the only one-- comprises threats to the church's health (e.g. sexual transgressions, false doctrine, or negligence amongst the clergy; dysfunctional conflicts in parishes; parishes without robust congregations). If you were a layman in the church, would you prefer to see a "reciprocal loyalist" or a "servant leader" take these on? Notably, the human organisations that deal with the greatest threats to integrity have almost universally evolved into hierarchies. But perhaps the Church is different?

(c) Few persons of either sex can easily adapt to a situation in which the other ethic is the better one. See e.g. Southwark and, some say, Canterbury.

(d) A single organisational ethos seldom supports both ethics. That is, it does not often support appeals both to a sense of honour in office and also to a spirit of spontaneous collaboration that denies the distinction on which the honour is based. It is hard to be both steep and flat.

My point in all this is not to argue against OWE, although I would caution that some inflated hopes for that are probably not, ultimately, helpful to ordained women or to the church. Rather, in thinking through the consequences of whatever happens, one should give both the benefit of a certain circumspect realism whilst there is time to think before acting.

Etymology Note-- "Hierarchy" < Greek, hieros, priest + arch-, to rule.

Peter, you said:

In the first instance, Christianity is not "full of the language of submission". That is simply a general assertion which provides a pretext for some entirely secular views on leadership.

I'm a bit baffled by this. It seems pretty obvious to me that the dominant teaching on relationships within the church is one one (mutual) submission and servanthood, putting the interests of others before one's own. Mark 10 and John 13 are obvious passages, along with Phil. 2. Eph 5.21 is a summary of mutual submission, which is worked out in different relationships in the following passage.

I struggle to think of anywhere in the NT which promotes the kind of hierarchical authority structures which mark secular organizations. So, I see the NT as a whole as a distinct challenge to the way the world organizes itself. That women are often more in tune with servant leadership than men is to their credit.

Hardly ever, and give it little attention. Against that, some social encylicals about a mixed economy have drawn some attention in the past. I regard Roman Catholicism as almost default unethical on many important matters.

The nearest thing to a feminine house of bishops. Observations analogous to those of Pluralist have been made by both sides discussing  the Vatican's current investigation of the Leadership Council of Religious Women, the organisation for women who lead Catholic religious orders in the United States. Indeed, since the LCWR may be the nearest thing to a feminine house of bishops that we have on earth, its approach to theology and leadership is often seen on all sides as an indication of what Catholicism might be like if women could be ordained in the Roman Church. And the controversy over the Vatican investigation itself is often seen, fairly or not, as a clash between masculine and feminine understandings of authority, order, and charism. Vive la différence?

Pluralist-- How often do you get to agree, even a little, with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (aka The Holy Office, aka The Holy Inquisition? ;-)

Looking through Galileo's telescope. Pluralist's comment on three tendencies that he sees among ordained women is refreshingly empirical. So, ideology aside, what do we actually observe "on the ground?" 

Christianity is full of the language of submission, but when a male ordained uses that language it relates to another higher bloke and God who apparently set it up, but the female use of submissive language has a different history. So the female in leadership will have a different linguistic impact and association - rises to submission again.

Do we see this in the churches around us or not?

Also surveys show female clergy are more liberal than male, on the whole, on doctrinal points. So a different background and more liberality anyway suggests a more liberal future with female equality.

Do we see this in the churches around us or not?

It is notable that female clergy that try to be evangelical come up against those who say she shouldn't be in charge anyway, so there is every incentive for a female cleric to leave the evangelical stable either altogether or call herself post-evangelical in some sense.

Do we see this in the churches around us or not?

Obviously, I cannot directly observe either English churches or their women in holy orders, but I can attest that, on this side of the pond, conservative and other Christians in all denominations have been saying similar things for years. From this perspective, Pluralist's comment seems nonpartisan on the face of it, and rather important. If there really is a strong gender effect on theology and leadership, then responsible people will want to take this into account, whatever they favour OWE or oppose WOE.