A change is coming. I don’t particularly mean to the theology that has come to be known as complementarian but the word itself. If you happen to hold to the view that the Scriptures teach that there are different people in the home (biological mother, father) and in the church (spiritual fathers and mothers) that exercise their responsibilities in similar but differing ways, expect to hear a lot more of the word patriarchy.

Time was that we could separate out complementarianism from the kooks who tie women to the kitchen sink and think they are only there for giving birth to as many children as possible. There are those who operate on the paradigm that all women should submit to all men and treat them as property, may their tribe never prosper. But it was possible to shunt those knuckleheads off into a corner and call it patriarchy. That time may be coming to an end.

This thought occurred to me when reading through this conversation between CBE keynote conference speakers. First, note the title of the conversation, What Are the Consequences of Theological Patriarchy? And by ‘theological patriarchy’ they mean complementarians like me.

The CBE conference looks interesting and features a number of useful discussions (I’ve listened to some of the preview panel discussions) and has as you would expect two competing strands: What they are advocating for and what they are fighting against? This is not at all surprising, but (and I’m open to be corrected here) in the past the theology they were standing against was called ‘complementarianism’. Now, it is patriarchy.

Secondly, the only time the word complementarian features is in a keynote to be given by Natalie Collins called Rebranding Complementarianism? It looks a bit like this is explaining the rebrand not suggesting it. Every other time where you might expect that word to appear it is patriarchy instead.

If that is what they are consciously doing it’s probably a smart PR move but it comes with some dangers. It’s smart because we all know that patriarchy is bad. It’s practically irredeemable in the wider culture and in large sections of the church. So the use of this bolder stronger word, that carries only negative associations, allows CBE to connect abuse of women, violence against women, control, misogyny and a whole bunch of other things with all who adhere to complementarianism no matter how soft or how strenuously we deny the connections. As one of their writers states,

The real problem is that complementarian theology itself—even “soft” complementarianism—lays the foundation for abuse and can have harmful unintended consequences in all its expressions.

The Consequences of Soft Complementarianism

And if that’s true, if the theology really does provide spiritual cover for abuse (which I deny) then why not call it what it is – patriarchy? The gloves it seems, have come off.

There are a few dangers for the church here. Firstly, it polarizes the debate in unhelpful ways. It doesn’t take much imagination to think if complementarian goes as a word, then egalitarian might go the same way too. Radical feminism, for example, might not be quite as deadly a term in the wider culture, but it’s generally avoided in the church. Just as churches don’t want to promote hate of women, most don’t think the world gets any better by hating men. You might argue that radical feminism does not entail hating men. Popular perception, begs to differ. Here is Wikipedia.

Radical feminism has often been associated with man-hating in the public consciousness.

Wikipedia

I’m just not sure that this road leads us anywhere good. It only increases the odds of our preaching to the choir, talking to our base, and mischaracterising our opponents.

Secondly, I think it makes it harder for groups like CBE to enlist leaders like me into some of their causes. I’ve written before about the sin of male violence, we’ve worked on a domestic abuse policy with agencies like Restored, we have women in our church who are survivors of abuse. I’m not trying to signal my virtue but we genuinely want to be, for the lack of a better word, an ally in this. On this justice issue, it isn’t hard to work out on which side to stand. Steve Holmes says,

We don’t want to see women killed. We don’t want to see girls mutilated. We don’t want to see female babies selectively aborted. That’s a kind of baseline for me. 

Steve Holmes

I wholeheartedly agree. I can sign up to that without hesitation or equivocation.

But it might get harder to do so alongside, say Steve and the panel, if it means I can only do so by disavowing a theology that I hold. Nor should the genuineness of that conviction be questioned because, you know, patriarchal theology. The dissonance between what I believe and what is said that I believe, or what it is said to necessarily entail no matter what I say, will only get wider as a result. As a tactic, if that is what it is, it might recruit a few, it might radicalise a few, it might very well close the door to more fruitful cooperation.

I’m fairly sure the other side, my lot are up to their share of tricks and if I paid any attention to them, I’d see it easy enough. As it is, I went to CBE because I’m trying to be open to learning from those across the aisle but I wasn’t encouraged. I guess, now I know what that feels like eh?