TWO ALTERNATIVE THEOLOGIES

Egalitarians Versus Complementarians

There are two competing views regarding the relationship of men to women as God intended it to be. There are those theologians who are known as complementarians, suggesting that they believe men and women are designed to complement each other and there are those known as egalitarians, suggesting that they believe men and women to be equal. However these terms are (deliberately?) used to confuse the issue. Everyone agrees that men and women are equal in terms of their value, dignity and worth. And everyone agrees that they are designed to be complementary. No one is saying that men and women are the same.

But whereas egalitarians argue that men and women have equal authority to lead in every sphere of life, complementarians argue that men were created to lead in the church and in the home, and some would add in society as well, and that women were created to support them in doing so and are therefore subordinate to men. 

For those unfamiliar with the terms, broadly speaking:

Complementarians believe that men and women have been given different but complementary roles in the home and in the church. Men are to lead and women are to support and encourage them in their leadership and to follow their lead.

Egalitarians maintain that positions of authority and responsibility in the home and in the church should be equally available to both men and women. 

Hard complementarians do not allow women to lead or exercise authority over men in any way. They prohibit women from teaching or preaching to groups of mixed genders and limit them to leading and teaching women and children only.

Soft complementarians allow women to be involved in a wide range of ministries within the church but prohibit them from holding the office of senior pastor or elder which they believe should be reserved for men only.

Complementarians used to argue their position on the basis that women were inferior to men. (See, for example, Leon Morris in  his 1957 Tyndale commentary.) But this became untenable after the social revolution of the 1960s. Then in 1977 George Knight introduced the idea that men and women are equal in value but have different roles. The man was created to 'lead' and the woman to 'obey.' Kevin Giles describes this view as follows:

'In creation, before the fall, God gave man the 'role' of leading, woman the 'role' of obeying. These 'roles' reflect the hierarchical social order God established in creation and can never change. They are the God-given ideal.'1

However, as he points out, the word 'role' is nowhere found in Scripture and is being used here in a way no dictionary defines it. Certainly men and women are designed to fulfill different roles. Men generally are more suited to some roles and women to others. But egalitarians do not accept that Scripture anywhere teaches that this means that men are designed to lead and women to obey.

'The primary issue in contention is not who does the housework, shopping, child care, gardening, or household repairs, as the use of the word 'role' would suggest to anyone who is not a complementarian. What fundamentally divides the two sides in this debate is that one side makes the permanent subordination of women the creation ideal; the other side makes the essential equality of the sexes the creation ideal.'1

Beth Allison Barr was brought up in a complementarian church and initially accepted what she had been taught. She describes this as follows:

'This was my understanding of Biblical womanhood: God designed women primarily to be submissive wives, virtuous mothers and joyful homemakers. God designed men to lead in the home as husbands and fathers as well as in church as pastors, elders and deacons. I believed that this gender hierarchy was divinely ordained.'2

This is the complementarian view. But is it what the Bible teaches? Kevin Giles writes:

'This theology convinces many evangelicals because it seems to be grounded firmly on what Scripture says. When the case is put...by appeal...to texts that speak of the man as the head of the woman, commanding women to be silent and forbidding them to teach or exercise authority in church, most Christians have no answer and many feel compelled to accept the complementarian position even though most do not consistently apply it'1

He then observes that complementarian theologians frequently insist that those who reject their position are in fact rejecting the authority of the Bible because this is what it clearly and plainly teaches. Commenting on this, he says: 

'It certainly does not help the complementarian cause for their leaders to...say all our critics do not accept the authority of Scripture. This last assertion is just not true. This debate is entirely about the interpretation of Scripture - not about the authority of Scripture.'1

'It is unpardonable to dogmatically assert that what I say the Bible says is what God says, when other believing theologians holding firmly to the authority of Scripture are of another opinion. The undeniable truth is that the complementarian interpretation is at best only one possible interpretation of the Bible. And if it is only one possible interpretation, it is not a sufficient basis to subordinate half of the human race.'1 

He then writes: 

'For complementarian theology to succeed each or even most of its building blocks must be able to stand examination and criticism. They cannot.'1

So that is what this discussion is about. What does the Bible actually teach about women? Does it teach the subordination of women to men as the creation ideal? Or is the full equality of the sexes the creation ideal? 

Notes

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

2. The Making Of Biblical Womanhood by Beth Allison Barr