A. K. Chidgzey

Over the next few weeks we are going to look at a few contentious isms, generally looking theologically at women, in the church, in family households, and women in general. It seems weird to me that this would be such a contentious topic, but…well…here we are. And I think that’s largely because it comes down to control and power and authority.

But this first episode will be looking at what is called complementarianism, and then next week we’ll look at egalitarianism. They both have to do with the quote-end-quote “role” of women, either in the church, or in families, or in society in general. Complementarianism insists that men and women have different roles, roles that are determined by gender. Whereas egalitarianism insists that roles are not determined by gender, and so men and women can share roles. And then I plan on going a little deeper in some particular issues and so the third of this little series will be on feminism, where we’ll unpack the concept in general but more specifically explore some of the contributions of feminist theology and biblical studies, which I think are really, really helpful and interesting and important.

These topics actually arise out of a few messages I’ve received from people or comments or discussions I’ve had with faithful Isms & Schisms listeners, and I’m excited to get into it. I should say from the top that I do hold to an egalitarian position, but in this episode I’m going to do my best to present as compelling as possible a case for complementarianism. Personally, I think that egalitarianism has a much more compelling case but I’ll try to stay as objective as I can. So bear that in mind as we look at this topic.

So what is complementarianism?

Complementarianism really took off as a central Evangelical belief in the 1970’s, in response to the growing influence of feminism. It’s kind of always existed in one way or another, but it wasn’t really a specific doctrine with its own name, its own ism, until quite recently. The likes of Wayne Grudem and John Piper starting pushing complementarianism hard in the 80’s and 90’s, according to whom, men and women are equal in value and dignity but have different roles in marriage and in the church.

The key theological change that occurred at this time was that women’s submission was not a consequence of sin and of the fall, but was part of the created order. So basically, prior to Grudem and Piper, women had different roles not because of anything inherent to themselves as women, but that the different household codes and rules concerning who could be pastors and so on that we find in the bible were instituted as a result of sin. This changed to the theological idea that men and women have different roles based entirely on their respective genders. This distinction is built right into creation itself.

In 1987, Piper and Grudem met in Danvers, Massachusetts, and published the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, setting out the core tenants of complementarianism. In this, women ‘should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership.’ This would go on to be very influential in American evangelicalism, particularly within the Southern Baptist Convention. According to this statement, “God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood, but different and complementary in function with male headship in the home and in the Church.”

It became entrenched in evangelical theology, so much so that some saw it as an essential doctrine. Piper said that those who reject complementarianism have a false understanding of the Gospel.

Complementarians of course argue that this male-female dynamic was instituted by the bible, rather than being a new invention. And we’ll look at those key bible verses in a moment.

Essentially, male and female are complementary expressions of the image of God. They go together like thunder and lightning, or wine and cheese, or fish and chips, or Canis Majoris. That’s the star called Sirius which is actually a binary star, that is, two stars but it looks like a single star from earth. It’s also called the dog star but I don’t know why. And I just got why Sirius Black is called Sirius Black.

Anyway, it should also be noted that complementarianism, at least the language and doctrine, is more of a Protestant thing. However, it is reflected in Catholic doctrine just with not quite the same language and without the fastidious doctrinal dogmatism that conservative Protestantism excels at.

So let’s turn to some of the key bible passages that might support complementarianism.

The first is right at the very beginning, in the creation accounts themselves. Genesis 1.27 says, “God created humans in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” The distinction between men and women was an intentional and deliberate choice of God as part of the creative process. According to Genesis, man was created first but then when God looked at the man God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” That is, the woman’s purpose is to help the man.

She was made from one of the man’s ribs, so from his side, not from his back or his front, his head or his foot – she stands side by side, equal, with the man. Also, the Greek word that was used to translate the word ‘helper’ is parakletos, which is the same word that is used to describe the role of the Holy Spirit. So the idea of helper is by no means one of derision.

After Adam and Eve had sinned and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, infecting the world with sin, God goes looking for Adam, the man, thereby suggesting that Adam bears the responsibility.

So for the complementarian, the distinction between men and women is built into creation itself. And because of this, gender specific rules about who can do what can be understood and adhered to.

When we get to the New Testament, there’s several passages that are commonly interpreted by complementarians as imposing social rules.

We read in 1 Corinthians, ch. 11 that “Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of the wife, and God is the head of Christ…[man] is the image and reflection of God, but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman but woman for the sake of man.” The complementarian interpretation of this passage is…probably obvious. Man is on top.

And actually talking about ‘on top’, it was actually shameful, in general society not just Christianity, for a woman to be on top when having sex, because it would seem like she had the authority, being on top. I’ve also heard that there was a medieval document that warned that this position would give men diarrhea.

And let’s just forget that little detail and move on to the next passage.

Ephesians ch.5 is one of the most important passages within complementarianism, and I’m going to read to you verses 22 to 33:

Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I am speaking about Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

Here we see the imperative for a woman to submit to her husband, who is to lead his wife. By doing so, a married couple is the image of Jesus’ relationship to the church, and like Jesus dying for his church, a man should be willing to die for his wife. So a great responsibility is placed on the man’s shoulders. Yes, women sacrifice their independence as they submit to their husbands, but men sacrifice their lives for their wives.

The next passage is quite possibly one of the most controversial passages of the bible. 1 Timothy ch.2 is much explicit concerning how a woman should act in submission.

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument, also that the women should dress themselves in moderate clothing with reverence and self-control, not with their hair braided or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Corinthians 14.34-35 is similar in this regard:

Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

A complementarian interpretation of these passages is, obviously, one all about submission. A woman must submit in every way. If you’re at church and you’ve got a question, don’t worry, your brave and intelligent husband will be able to clarify. Just don’t disturb the preacher right now. Ask your husband when you get home and after you’ve cooked dinner, bathed the children, and done the laundry. And women should not teach over men or have any form of authority whatsoever over another man, her role is to be a good manager of the household. We find this in Titus ch.2, where women are encouraged to encourage other women to love their husbands, care for the children, look after the household and submit to their husbands.

When 1 Timothy ch.3 outlines who can be a church leader, women are entirely disqualified.

There are other passages throughout the bible used to support complementarianism, including Proverbs 31 where a righteous woman manages the household while her husband is off making a name for himself in the public space. Mind you, the Proverbs 31 woman is a rich, aristocratic woman and was by no means the norm for the time. Nevertheless, it has been used to argue for complementarianism.

So basically, according to complementarianism, only men should hold positions of authority over other men. Sometimes this is extended to all facets of life; other times its limited to a man and wife or to church leadership. John Piper, for example, suggests that women should not take jobs where they might have some sort of position of authority over another man. This includes being police officers, lecturers, politicians, and so on. He also suggests that Christian men should not read non-fiction books authored by women. His desire here is take seriously these bible passages.

Women, then should only hold positions of authority over other women and children. So they can preach at women’s events, or teach Sunday school, or be primary school teachers. That sort of thing. If at any point a woman might have a position of authority over a man, she has disobeyed scripture. However, there are the rare moments when a woman might be required to take a position of authority. This is okay only when a man is not available or unqualified.

Importantly, this is not a hierarchy and it is not about the man ruling over the woman. There is equality and men are encouraged to listen to their wives’ opinions and to make decisions together, as a team. But ultimately, the man bears the responsibility.

To me, traditional complementarianism is not really complementary in the way complementarians think it is. It’s complementary in the same way that Dijon mustard complements a medium-rare fillet of steak. Yeah, the mustard is nice and together they make a tasty dish, but if you take away the mustard you’ve still got a tasty dish. If you take away the steak and leave the mustard, you’re gonna go hungry. Plus, the steak is the big ticket item on the menu; no one orders the steak because they want the mustard. In the same way, complementarianism treats the man as the big ticket item and the woman as the next extra on the side. He is elevated, while she is denigrated. No matter how the complementarian argument is spun, with all sorts of flowery language to make it seem as if the woman is equal to the man, in my mind, this is how it always turns out. A façade to uphold the patriarchy and retain control.

Complementarians say that there is equality between men and women, but honestly I just don’t see it. Men’s accomplishments are allowed to be public, to be seen, to be recognized. Women’s accomplishments need to be quiet and unseen. The ideas, direction, and decisions of a man are given far greater weight than a woman’s. It’s a way of retaining the patriarchal values of yesteryear, now that society has moved on.

The rejection of complementarianism is not the outright rejection of any and all difference between the genders, but simply the rejection of prescribed roles based solely and, in my opinion, arbitrarily on gender. Rather, different people are good at different things, regardless of gender, and complementarianism forces people into certain molds that they may not be good at. There are so many women out there who are good leaders, good preachers, good executives, good researchers, and if we limit those roles only to men, we severely limit the potential of humanity. There is nothing – nothing – that prevents a woman from being a good leader. It’s often argued that women are far too emotional, but I published four episodes on the English Reformation that show that men can be just as emotional – Henry VIII had a man, even a good friend and ally of his, executed, because the man arranged a marriage to a woman Henry found unattractive; he had his wife executed because she gave birth to a daughter. And then Elizabeth was a masterful politician who steered England through incredibly turbulent waters, a far better monarch than so many of the kings who had gone before her and many who came after, protecting the land and bringing prosperity to the nation. But there is nothing inherent to the male gender that makes a man a better leader than a woman, and the fallacious idea that there is is how the world ends up with a President Trump.

That’s the other thing. Men benefit when women are not restricted to these antiquated gender roles, so long as those men pick up the slack and take on some of the jobs that would normally be relegated to women.

But we’ll explore these, other arguments, as well as return to these key bible passages when we look at complementarianism’s un-complementary opposite, egalitarianism, next week.