I find myself saving a lot of posts and articles to read later. Inevitably a number of them are posts on a single theme, so I share them here as a occasional collections. Today’s theme: complementarianism.

Slippery Slopes & Finding Allies

I would urge my egalitarian brothers and sisters to be generous to those of us who are complementarian – to acknowledge that our position is born of biblical conviction, not misogyny. To say that all complementarians are misogynists is as much of a category mistake as to say all egalitarians support same sex marriage. It’s hard to be in settings where I want to stand with you around sexuality but feel hostility from you because of my biblical convictions around complementarity.

The Complementarian compass

When we think about questions relating to the relationship between husbands and wives in the home and the role of men and women in the church, we tend to think of the debate being primarily between complementarians and egalitarians with a binary choice.  I want to suggest that there are good reasons for not seeing the conversation in those terms.  First of all, I suspect that some complementarians will agree more with some egalitarians than they realise whist disagreeing more strongly with other complementarians.  This works the other way too, with some egalitarians perhaps being surprised that they have more agreement with some complementarians and more disagreement with other egalitarians than they are expecting.

The Need for a Third Way Between Egalitarianism and Complementarianism

We should all deplore this impression that complementarianism makes some women feel diminished, inferior to men, and less valuable to God. To meet this problem of perception, I propose six items below that should be emphasized because they are ways to affirm women in church practices. I expect that many who identify themselves as complementarian will agree with most or all these six emphases. Some who bear the label of complementarian will disagree, which is another problem.

Marriage Is Not Egalitarian But Much Contemporary Complementarianism Misapplies Husband-Headship In Marriage

I don’t particularly like the term complementarian, as it suggests a comprehensive way in which men and women should relate to each other. The vast majority of Ephesians addresses men and women alike. They are not differentiated. They were alike dead in trespasses and sins. They are alike given new life by grace. They are alike incorporated into the church and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They alike have access to God. They are alike recreated into the image of Christ that they bear. This establishes the fundamental equality of men and women in Christ. There is no general principle of patriarchy. 

The duty to submit applies only in specific relational contexts. I think it would be better to speak of functional husband-headship in marriage, functional elder-headship in church, and functional parent-headship in families as this better captures the biblical teaching. Authority is limited to specific relationships and is meant to be exercised in life-giving and generative ways. Complementarianism is ultimately context-specific headship.

You can’t reject textual observations because you don’t like the quarters from which they emanate

Many complementarians (rightly in my view) want to avoid an egalitarianism that they think is not supported by scripture. But in seeking to avoid egalitarianism, many refuse to acknowledge even legitimate observations and interpretations of biblical texts from those quarters. Ruling inadmissible anything someone egalitarian might argue, in my view, is what has led to a certain brand of cultural complementarianism – dare I say a particular US form and a specific subset of US culture at that – coming to the fore and being insisted on as complementarianism proper. It often seems like, in a bid to keep away from the doctrine they reject, there can be no admission that those who disagree can ever read the text rightly. This, in my view, has led to a particularly wonky complementarianism.

Complementarianism does not demand total agreement and still lets you read what you want

Who wants an elder who won’t let anyone disagree with him ever, even when the person disagreeing is clearly better trained than him and more likely to know a matter? In what world is it good management of anyone to ask them to be more stupid – setting aside their better judgement for your untrained layman’s best-guess – and to not use their gifts, talents and training for the benefit of the group you are managing? To do that is not complementarianism. Nor is it egalitarian as it happens. It is just stupid. It is certainly bad household management, and would be terrible church management, and such an approach should rightly disqualify you from any leadership position.

In addition I recently posted twice on this subject: The 7 Pillars Of Egalitarianism & The Seven Pillars Of Complementarianism