Thread by @XianJaneway

Complementarianism is like a potato peeler.
Stay with me here.

It's sold to Christians by its function: "This is how you obey God and have a good family."
We don't purchase potato peelers to do anything but peel things.

No one argues AGAINST "Comps think the best way to obey God and have a good family is by complementarianism."

[Content note: I'm about to use graphic violence to make a point. I'm a writer who likes Stephen King--sorry in advance.]

But, imagine if a husband took a potato peeler and started using it to peel a woman's skin. It's still serving it's function! It's peeling!

What happens in that situation? Do we argue whether or not a potato peeler has any use in and of itself? Do we debate about the design and function of a specific peeler? Do we say, "Well, if she stayed out of the kitchen while he held the peeler, she wouldn't get her skin peeled"

What about the woman on the receiving end?
Does she say, "Ow! That hurts! Stop that!"
Or does she say, "He's the head of the family, he's been peeling potatoes longer than I have. Jane's family down the street has potatoes every night, and they taught my husband how to use it."

How does the pastoral leadership respond?
Do they say, "Stop using a potato peeler on your wife! It's for potatoes, not humans!"
Or do they argue that the potato peeler has value, and teach a woman to appreciate how much easier a potato peeler has made her chores?

Do they urge her to respond joyfully to the existence of the potato peeler, because God created it for her good?

The point is, a potato peeler is a thing, AND it can be wielded IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS.

When we talk about comp theology harming women, many comps want to talk about the theology, Biblical inerrancy, or Church history.

Not about the abuser, the fruit of the theology, or the life of the woman being damaged.

That's as dumb as talking about the damn potato peeler.

It's completely reasonable to talk about rates of abuse in comp churches. "Hey, if this many potato peelers are hurting ppl, maybe we should use something else, or start eating baked potatoes!"

It's completely reasonable to talk about the church's teachings about responding to abuse.
"Why didn't she say 'Stop that!' or 'Ow!'? Maybe b/c we told her to constantly rejoice that she had a potato peeler to use???"

It's completely reasonable to educate churches on how to handle abuse cases in the church: "We've got to start making it super clear that there's a safe and unsafe way to handle sharp objects while cooking. Someone's going to lose a finger."

But it's completely, utterly UNREASONABLE to ask those of us bringing #churchtoo or #ChurchDV or #SpiritualAbuse or #Youdontknowevangelicals issues to RE-LITIGATE Biblical inerrancy every single time.

We KNOW there are "good comps who never abuse."
Pardon the expression, but:

If you insist on talking about theology every time we talk about abuse, it's as ridiculous as saying, "But a potato peeler is a good thing!" to a woman who's had little bits of her skin shaved off. /end