Oranges To Hand-Grenades: Comparing TGC To ISIS Demonstrates A Fundamental Misunderstanding Of Both Positions -- By: Ben Montoya

Journal: Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Volume: JBMW 20:2 (Fall 2015)
Article: Oranges To Hand-Grenades: Comparing TGC To ISIS Demonstrates A Fundamental Misunderstanding Of Both Positions
Author: Ben Montoya


Oranges To Hand-Grenades: Comparing TGC To ISIS Demonstrates A Fundamental Misunderstanding Of Both Positions

Ben Montoya

Associate Pastor
Chinese Gospel Church
Toronto, Ontario

Doctoral Candidate
McMaster Divinity College
Hamilton, Ontario

Throughout my education, teachers employed analogies; they did so to help us understand difficult concepts by way of comparison. But they also required them of us to gauge our comprehension of subjects. The latter is relevant for this article because if someone does not understand a certain topic well, then their use of analogies will uncover their misinformation and bias.

For example, when evangelical theologians explain the Trinity, they advise against using analogies because they all break down at key theological points—usually demonstrating that the analogy in some way denies one of the key tenets of the doctrine. A similar example would be comparing oranges with hand-grenades. Although they can both fit into a person’s hand, can both be thrown, one nourishes while the other kills. It is a poor analogy. A better comparison would be oranges to apples. Both are edible fruits. Unfortunately, poor analogies abound.

In a recent blog article, Tyler M. Tully posted the blog “Who Said It? The Gospel Coalition or ISIS on Gender Roles.”1 Although Tully claims not to compare apples to oranges, I hope to demonstrate that his comparison reveals his lack of understanding of the complementarian position just as much as comparing oranges to hand-grenades. The purpose of this article, then, is to respond to his blog. Although a response might come in the form of a blog from another website, a fuller published essay is given here because Tully’s argument is indicative of a larger problem of some people’s understanding of complementarianism. I hope that this article facilitates clearer understanding of what complementarianism is, and what it is not, and an encouragement to clarify the conversation between both parties.

Tully’s Argument

Tully introduces his blog by referring to the President Obama’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast where he identified violence in the history of Christianity (e.g., the Crusades, Inquisition, slavery, Jim Crow, etc.).2 Obama’s point was that violence is not unique to any religion. As a survey of American history easily demonstrates, presidents usually make for bad theologians. Obama presents an unfortunate, yet popular, misunderstanding of the history of Christianity because he claims that Ch...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()