What is Complementarianism?
Challenging Complementarianism: Part One
Christianity has an unfortunate history of sexual discrimination. In recent years, this has been formalised in certain Protestant circles under the guise of something called complementarianism.
In this series, I want to look at the influence of sexual discrimination within the church generally and at complementarianism in particular and look at why it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Complementarianism is word that was invented in 1988 by an organisation called the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The rise of feminism in society and decreasing tolerance of sexism in the church had left quite a lot of people disquieted. So a group of prominent (male) church leaders gathered together with the joint aim of addressing the threat to traditional views of gender roles. They produced something called the Danvers Statement that outlined their position.
In brief, their position was, and is, that men and women are equal before God, of equal worth and dignity, but that God has ordained different roles for men and women. And roles that involve being in charge and leading things are reserved for men.
This could be seen as progress. In previous generations, men were not at all shy in declaring that men were better than women and that God thought so too. Here are some lovely comments from some of the church fathers:
In very truth, women are a feeble race, untrustworthy and of mediocre intelligence. — Epiphanius
Man was first formed, and elsewhere he shows their superiority
God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman
The woman taught once, and ruined all…the sex is weak and fickle. — John Chrysostom
…woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. — Augustine of Hippo
Complementarians wouldn’t support any of these statements. They would say that men and women are of equal value and standing before God. It’s just that God has given men and women different roles. The roles suitable for women are not lesser, just different. Flower arranging and making sandwiches are not lesser roles to leading and preaching, just different. These are not rules created by mere men, they would argue, but are mandated by scripture. The Bible, they argue, makes it very clear that men are supposed to be in charge, in the church, in the family and preferably in wider society too.
Though they would be loathe to admit it, I suspect that shifts in culture and the influence of feminism have had a softening effect on the theology and world view of modern complementarians. Even in the 1950s people were writing and speaking in ways that were blatantly sexist. By the late 1980s, this overt sexism had become much more difficult to justify — even in circles that supported the maintenance of ‘traditional’ roles for men and women.
Complementarianism is most prominent in the United States, but it is part of the culture and theology of churches elsewhere as well, including in the UK. And it has a particularly toxic impact on the lives of men and women in those churches that promote it, which is why I think it’s worth taking some time to address it as a world view.
Complementarianism is quite difficult to challenge if you are in an environment that teaches it and works according to its principles. For a couple of reasons. Firstly, it draws heavily on a particular reading of the Bible and declares itself to be ‘biblical’. This makes challenging complementarianism mean that you are seen as challenging the Bible — aka ‘The Word of God’. And no one really wants to do that.
Secondly, complementarianism emphasises the equality of men and women very heavily in its rhetoric. Its proponents talk about the burden and responsibility of male leadership and the need for men to be humble. And the responsibility of all Christians to humbly accept their God given roles in life.
To stand up for your right to be heard, to follow your calling, to have an equal part to play in the leading and organising of Christian community, feels somewhat un-Christian when you’re part of faith that emphasises the humility of Christ. After all, St Paul writes:
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death —
even death on a cross! Philippians 2
How can I, as a woman, possibly object to something as trivial as not being allowed to be a church elder, when Christ’s humility meant he was willing to die on a cross?
Complementarians are not shy in using Christian humility in their arguments about why men need to be in charge, and why it is, in fact, an act of humility on their part.
Jonathan Leeman writes:
Godly authority, as set down in Scripture and as I’ve witnessed it, is seldom an advantage to those who possess it. It involves leading and making decisions, to be sure. Jesus led. But what the godly leader feels day to day are not all the advantages, but the burdens of responsibility, of culpability, of even bearing another’s guilt. It’s profoundly costly, usually involving the sacrifice of everything. It requires the end of personal desires. Meanwhile, those “under” that authority often possess most of the advantages. They’re provided protection and opportunity, strength and freedom.
It’s really hard, when you’re part of a faith that emphasises humility, to argue with this kind of statement. It can feel horribly unchristian to do so. That often leaves people trapped between a nagging sense that this doesn’t feel right at a visceral level and a set of arguments that seem impenetrable.
Where it remains unchallenged, complementarianism can do an awful lot of damage. When looked at closely and logically, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As we shall see.
References
https://www.9marks.org/article/complementarianism-a-moment-of-reckoning-part-3/
The Danvers Statement: https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement/
Next article in this series:
If you enjoyed this, you might like my Loved Called Gifted podcast, available on most podcast platforms, or you can find it here.
I offer spiritual direction and coaching. The Loved Called Gifted course, available online and in person, will help you to discover your life calling. Discover these things and other bits and pieces on my website.
Three other series you might like, if you like this article:
