There are at least two ways to view theological debate in the church, those things that play themselves out not over days but decades or even centuries. They can be seen as evidence of our deep disunity or, spun more positively, evidence of our commitment to truth. Truth matters so we fight hard for it. That has an apologetic downside of course, because surely God could have made His truth a little bit more obvious. And it is there that the blind-spot of your opponent comes into play. Not your blind-spot of course, but definitely theirs.

So I was slightly taken aback by this confident assertion by Steve Holmes:

If we ask what is God doing, I see two or three things, at least in Protestant churches. It is fairly safe to say that over the last three decades or so, the exegetical arguments are increasingly being won. What one sees if one examines the complementarian positions that are advanced aggressively by certain groups is that the basis keeps shifting. They tried to argue on this point and lost, and then on that point and lost, and then another. I don’t know how long they can keep playing that game but I think we can say with some confidence that the exegetical arguments are being won. 

What Are the Consequences of Theological Patriarchy?

Is that so?

And a few years ago Kevin Giles was even more blunt about it.

What has not been publicly acknowledged so far by complementarians is the fact that in all the major exegetical debates they have had with evangelical egalitarians they have lost completely.[5] It is now obvious that the so-called “biblical argument” for male headship has no textual support, and that the complementarian appeal to the Bible can only persuade ill-informed anxious young men and already convinced complementarians.

Complementarian Theology in Crisis

There was a quite a bit of uproar over Kevin DeYoung’s recent article Let Us Reason Together About Complementarianism and I suspect DeYoung’s invitation ‘to reason together’ was as well received as Giles’ polite invitation at the end of his evisceration of complementarians to, ‘Let the discussion begin’. Which is to say, not well received at all.

But not so fast, says Andrew Wilson. Commenting on the same internal debate as Giles and also quoting Carl Trueman, he writes,

Personally, I’m quite optimistic about the fallout from the whole debate. (More optimistic than Carl Trueman? Who knew?) I think correctives are good. I think robust challenges to faulty formulations of doctrine will, in the end, produce health rather than decay. Admittedly there is a certain type of complementarian argument that, in all likelihood, will be either gradually jettisoned, or refined and nuanced until it can no longer be recognised as the same thing, and this, I suspect, is what Carl means by “complementarianism as currently constructed.” But the overall effect of that change will be positive, rather than negative, for complementarianism as a whole, let alone the church as a whole.

Complementarianism in Crisis?

I don’t think you can call Andrew ill-informed or anxious. Or for that matter, young anymore. So I guess he’s only persuaded because he’s already persuaded – which I don’t suppose applies to any egalitarians now would it?

Anyway, let me address how Holmes’ narrative is seen from the other side. Holmes argues that complementarians keep shifting the goalposts and I would imagine he might well point to Wilson’s admission that various arguments being ‘jettisoned, refined or nuanced’ as proof that he’s on to something. But there’s another way to look at it. Perhaps the reason the complementarians keep shifting their defence is because egalitarians keep shifting their attack. Just saying.

So let me play back Holmes’ words just from the other side.

The basis keeps shifting. They tried to argue on this point and lost, and then on that point and lost, and then another. I don’t know how long they can keep playing that game but I think we can say with some confidence that the exegetical arguments are being won.

And I’ve heard that claim. Egalitarians tried this angle and it didn’t work. So they tried another angle and that didn’t work. Now they’re trying yet another angle and that probably won’t work either.

Now, I do think the egalitarians are broadly winning the culture war, and in at least one way, as it relates to the handling of abuse this is mostly a good thing. But I think my egalitarian friends grossly underestimate how deeply this thread to wider culture reinforces the complementarian view that they should hold the line. Fitting in with the broader culture is precisely what they think they should avoid in so many areas in relation to sex, gender & sexuality. They see that as part of the problem not the solution.

So it can easily feel like a war where both sides are claiming, through their various media, that their side is winning now and where it really matters, in the long run they’ll win there too.

I’m not familiar enough with the internal egalitarian conversation to know whether they are also debating, refining, nuancing their position but I think if new circles are to be drawn and new bridges built, then I hope the answer is yes. But talk of winning and losing in the body of Christ is sad and shows that there is really no reasoning together, no real discussion and, that means in the end, no one really wins.