COMPLEMENTARIANS TODAY

In the final part of our studies on Women In Leadership we will examine a number of issues for evangelicals today in relation to the role of women. Firstly, we will look at complementarians and some of the issues facing them today. Secondly we will consider what it means to be masculine and feminine in the absence of any gender hierarchy. After that we will look at what it might mean practically for churches to adopt a more egalitarian theology. And finally we will address two of the major objections that complementarians have to egalitarian theology. 

Complementarian Theology And Practice

The term 'complementarian' - although not the theology it represents - is relatively new. According to Denny Burk 'the term emerged as a shorthand to describe the theological vision of The Danvers Statement'1 

Intended as a summary the Bible’s teaching about male and female roles within the church and the home, you can read The Danvers Statement for yourself at the link below.2  The background to it is as follows.

'In 1986, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Susan Foh, Wayne House and a handful of others met in Atlanta, Georgia to strategise a biblical response to a rising tide of feminism that they perceived within evangelicalism. A year later in 1987, they met again, this time in Danvers, Massachusetts to finalise a theological statement of principles for a new organisation that they wished to found. That statement became known as The Danvers Statement.'1 

Shortly afterwards, their new organisation, the Council For Biblical Manhood And Womanhood, was formed to promote their complementarian theology.

Complementarians today are united in making two basic claims: 'first, that men and women are equal image bearers worthy of equal honor and value; second, that men and women hold different roles, with men exercising a 'headship' that corresponds to a particular kind of authority in the church and the home.'3 However, these beliefs are understood and applied in different ways so that in fact there is a broad spectrum of belief and practice within complementarianism. 

'In what some call 'soft' forms of complementarianism, both men and women hold distinct gender roles in the church and in the home. Although the man practices 'headship' and arbitrates most major decisions, both husband and wife understand that they are ultimately submitting to Jesus.'4 In these churches women may not serve as elders or pastors but are not restricted beyond this. In 'hard' forms of complementarianism, 'women rarely work outside the home, have conclusive authority over important household decisions, or teach men in church.'4

Most of the complementarians I know are 'soft' complementarians who have no other motivation than to be faithful to Scripture and obedient to what it teaches. They genuinely believe that male 'headship' as they understand it is what the Bible teaches. But at the same time, they balance this with clear teaching emphasising that men and women equally are deserving of dignity and respect. They emphasise the sacrificial, servant nature of the leadership that men are called upon to give. They listen to and take into account the views of women when decisions are being made. They aim to enable women to flourish in all aspects of their gifting. They may restrict women from occupying the office of elder and from preaching to a mixed congregation but they are careful not to restrict women beyond this. 

To my mind, 'soft' complementarianism is better than 'hard' complementarianism just as 'soft' racism might be better than 'hard' racism. But complementarianism, hard or soft, is still complementarianism and as Terran Williams says:

'...if complementarianism is wrong, then even a soft form of it is no more acceptable than merely a soft form of racism would be.'

Of course it is important, when Christians disagree about the interpretation of Scripture, that we learn to find ways of accommodating one another. If we cannot agree about our theology - then perhaps we can at least agree in practice to ensure, for example, that women's voices are heard, that any practice that is harmful or demeaning to women is rooted out and that women are enabled to use their gifts within the fellowship in every way possible. In an article for Christianity Today, Hannah Anderson writes:

'The challenge for complementarians, then, is to create policies and practices that don’t unnecessarily limit the freedom or the responsibilities of women as coheirs of the gospel of life. It also means recognising where their policies and practices have become paternalistic. And in a complementarian church, the onus is on male church leaders to ensure this happens.'3

If such steps are taken, and such policies put in place, it may be that complementarians and egalitarians can agree to live together and respect one another's sincerely held viewpoints within the same fellowship.

Nevertheless, it remains my conviction that complementarian theology is flawed and that, however unintentionally, it often has harmful consequences for women. Adopting better practices and ensuring that our teaching is Biblically balanced towards women whilst retaining complementary theology is to me like caging the monster and we certainly need to do that at the very least. But so much better to get rid of the monster altogether.

Issues Facing Complementarians Today

Kevin Giles claims that complementarianism today (in America at least) is in crisis. He notes a number of problems that present-day complementarians have to face in trying to maintain their theology.

The Exegetical Battle

First, he claims that complementarians have lost almost every exegetical battle they have faced in recent years:

'Most commentators now reject that Genesis 1–3 subordinates woman before the fall. Most studies agree that Jesus affirmed the essential or substantive equality of the two sexes. Most theologies of Paul conclude that he had a charismatic theology of ministry in which leadership in the church was given by the Spirit and that gender was inconsequential and that Junia was a woman apostle. On the much disputed words kephalē and authentein the jury has given its verdict: kephalē can mean either 'head-over' or 'source' and authentein refers to a form of objectionable authority. 1 Corinthians 14: 33b–36, one of the key complementarian proof texts, has been shown to be almost certainly not from the pen of Paul. In Ephesians, Paul is not endorsing patriarchy but seeking to subvert it and he gives a distinctive understanding of Christian marriage where the husband gives himself for his wife, like Christ did for the church. The exhortations to women and slaves to be subordinate or obedient are of exactly the same nature, practical advice to those living in a culture that took the subordination of women and slavery for granted. The ones addressed to wives are not grounded in a supposed pre-fall subordination of women.'5

He then lists a number of formerly complementarian scholars who, in the light of this, have become egalitarian:

'Those who think complementarianism does not reflect what the Bible actually teaches on women are among the most able evangelical theologians in the world. The following were all complementarians but they have now changed their minds: FF Bruce, Leon Morris, Millard Erickson, Kenneth Kanzer, Elaine Storkey, NT Wright, Howard Marshall, Gordon Fee, Gilbert Bilezikian, Myron Augsburger, Richard Bauckham, Philip Payne, Ben Witherington, Walter Kaiser, Mimi Haddad, Stanley Gundry, Kenneth Bailey, Aida Besancon Spencer, Walter Leifield, Joel Green, Cynthia Long Westfall, Ray Bakke, Alan F Johnson, Ronald Sider, Miriam Adney, Roger Nicole, Craig Keener, Cornelius Plantinga, John Stackhouse, David Hamilton, Ron Pierce, John Phelan, Michael Bird, Roberta Hestenes, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, Stuart and Jill Briscoe and Paul and Kay Rader. This list is representative not exhaustive. What should be carefully noted is that no fewer than seven of these people have been elected as president of the Evangelical Theological Society, a society that can only be joined if a declaration of belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is signed annually.'5

The Difficulty Of Applying Complementarian Theology Today

Another problem that complementarians have to face these days is the difficulty of applying their theology in today's world. Kevin Giles writes that 'in the affluent West we now live in a profoundly egalitarian culture. It is assumed that women can do most things men can do and some things even better. They make excellent leaders. Virtually all Christians have come to the conclusion that the liberation of women is a good thing... Most Christian men are pleased to see their wives and daughters getting the best education, doing well in the work place, leading in all spheres of life, and enjoying profoundly equal marriages. To see women flourishing in modern life in ways hitherto unknown and unimaginable is surely something very positive. The rewards of equal marriages that involve sharing household chores and child-rearing and making decisions jointly, is also something to be commended. The headship of the husband in the historic sense of the man making all the major decisions and being the bread-winner is no longer a viable option.'5 

Furthermore, Giles continues: 'Women are now teaching and exercising significant leadership in all but the most doctrinaire complementarian churches. Excluding women from church leadership and from preaching is growing ever more difficult.' What do we say to women who feel called by God to such a ministry? John MacArthur told Beth Moore, a leading evangelical Bible teacher in America, that she should 'go home.'5 John Piper believes that women should not be teaching in Bible college. Some men traveled to Hong Kong to tell Jackie Pullinger that she should step down from her ministry. Surely this can't be right?

'Finally,' he writes, 'we have the problem for complementarians that they cannot consistently apply their headship doctrine in the world outside of the home and the church. The prerogative of men to lead in society, once assumed, has been rejected. Women are now heads of state, prime ministers, judges, managing directors, generals in the armed forces and ship’s captains. The foundational premise of complementarian theology is that the man was appointed to lead. It is the creation-given ideal. If this is the case...then men should lead in the home, in the church and in the state. (But the truth is) that in today’s world it is impossible to apply the doctrine of male headship outside the home and the church.'5 

The Consequences For Women

I once saw the belief that women are subordinate to men described on Facebook as 'misogyny dressed up as theology'. Of course I do not believe for one moment that complementarians are all misognysts. Nevertheless it is true that their theology has been used to justify misogyny far more than they like to admit. 

We discussed the link between headship teaching and domestic abuse in the chapter on The Bible And Experience. There we saw that after the Harvey Weinstein scandal which broke in October 2017:

'On the hashtags #metoo and #churchtoo large numbers of evangelical women came out and spoke of their abuse in their homes by men who justified their behaviour by insisting that their wives should obey them, quoting headship teaching in support, and of the failure of evangelical pastors to help them.'6

We also saw that:

'The incidence of domestic abuse and violence in the Southern Baptist Convention and among Sydney Anglicans, where complementarian teaching is the prevailing dogma, is exceptionally high.’6

In his recent book The Headship Of Men and The Abuse Of Women, Kevin Giles presents a wealth of compelling evidence to substantiate his claim that: 

'...headship teaching can encourage and legitimate domestic abuse and it must be abandoned if domestic abuse is to be effectively countered in our churches.'5 

We also discussed the harmful consequences for women of restricting them to domestic duties in the home, as some complementarians seek to do, in the chapter on Busy At Home. In summary, Terran Williams says:

'This kind of doctrine shrinks the full offering of a woman in society, the church, and - to a lesser degree - the home. This doctrine of female domestication, with its failure to see all that God sees in a woman, causes many women to live smaller, restrictive, under-realised lives over time, not bigger, expansive ones.'7

And we discussed the consequences for women of excluding them from leadership and teaching positions in the church in the chapter on Teaching And Exercising Authority 3. There we saw that: 

'The question of whether or not they are overstepping the line weighs on gifted women in complementarian congregations until they make themselves smaller and smaller. Because the height of the stained-glass ceiling is uncertain, women habitually stoop to avoid bumping into it. This diminishes the contribution of gifted women and weakens the churches that their gifts are given to edify.'8

If these really are the consequences for women of complementarian theology, then surely for their sake at least we must be willing to question whether or not this is really what the Bible teaches. 

For all these reasons, I suggest that it is now time for complementarians to rethink their theology and the Biblical basis for it - or at least to ensure that the way they apply it is consistent with the dignity of women as well as men as image-bearers, is alert to the danger of abuse and allows women to flourish with the least possible restriction in the use of their gifts within the body of Christ.

Notes

1. https://cbmw.org/2019/08/01/whats-in-a-name

2. https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement

3. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/may-web-only/complementarianism-not-inherently-patriarchal-women-gender.html

4. https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

5. What The Bible Actually Teaches About Women by Kevin Giles

6. The Headship Of Men And The Abuse Of Women by Kevin Giles

7. How God Sees Women by Terran Williams

8. https://terranwilliams.com/what-mike-winger-gets-wrong-on-what-women-cant-do