Reasonable complementarianism?

I am going to start this post in the same way as most narrators about the subject of complementarianism. It is worth saying straight away that there is much about this view that I am in agreement with. I believe, and see that there are differences between the sexes to be treasured. However I would say that I am egalitarian in that I believe there to be equal authority between the sexes, both in secular and spiritual life. I see both of these demonstrated in the Bible and don't believe them to be mutually exclusive. I am, as ever very mindful of the fact that I am not a complete work. I like the picture of a piece of sea-glass on a beach - various waves and seasons make their mark. 

In the Bible, God establishes things in pairs. Sun and moon, light and dark, earth and water. These things exist in relationship to one another. It is reasonable to say that each needs the other to fully flourish and be distinguishable in and of itself. He then made man and woman. When he made man he knew that in and of himself, man was not complete. He needed the woman to be complete. The woman needed the man to be complete. In the same way that the sun and the moon are different but seen as opposite sides of the same coin, so too are man and woman. They are intrinsically linked by their humanity but different in their projection of the different sides of the same coin. This is reasonable. 

(Side note): None of this is to say that a single person needs a spouse in order to be complete. Indeed Paul suggest that those who are able should remain single in order to be able to give themselves in service to God without the distraction of the responsibility that marriage brings (1 Cors. 7). A post certainly for another day to reiterate the completeness of a person due to their identity in Christ. The reduction of 'love' to sexual attraction being perhaps the tragedy of humanity but I digress. Another day.

I am not here to argue that men and women are exactly the same. To say that would be to ignore the beauty of creation and if we were meant to be the same, then God would have rendered a single human, presumably capable of procreating independently - but where would be the fun in that? God is a relational God. He is complete in the triune way of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; they were there in the beginning and will be there in the end. God did not need humanity to complete Himself, He wanted a way to demonstrate His glory and love and how better to do that than with another fully relational being capable of independent thought. So we were created... man and woman he created us. He created us equal in both instruction to rule the earth (Genesis 1:28) and access to salvation (Galations 3:28). God is deliberate in every single thing He does, so to disregard the differences between man and woman does a disservice to us all and robs us of the beauty to be seen when humanity works together cohesively.

Complementarians often believe that these differences extend to the different qualities that men and women bring to the table. Generally speaking they attribute two qualities predominantly to the male camp. It is here that for me complementarianism falls short of offering a reasonable argument on the subject of women in eldership in the church. 

1. Men are naturally protectors.

This argument falls down on so many levels. Adam failed to protect Eve. She absolutely failed too but he didn't intervene or try to persuade her otherwise. He was with her during her conversation with the serpent (Genesis 3:6) and said nothing. The narrative ever since has been that Eve deceived Adam. The fact is that he was weak and did not remind her that God was pretty clear about the rules. Eve has borne the overwhelming burden of her own failure and her 'protectors' failure to do just that. Her daughters have suffered continually at the hands of her sons. Men are predisposed to violence against women and 1 in 3 women in their lifetime will suffer abuse by a man. A vast majority of the time this will be by her intimate partner or male family members; the ones who were meant to protect her. Males are not natural protectors. If you look to the Bible (in any discussion about mothers) and to the animal kingdom, females in fact are far more protective than males. Men even throughout the bible did little to rectify this until Jesus came. Abraham 'gave' Sarah to foreign kings, Lot offered his virgin daughters to rapists. We need to stop looking at the males desire to go to war and 'protect land and country' as the plumb line for what it means to 'protect'. More men may well have died in war than women, but more women have died at the hands of men than in any of the wars combined.

2. Men are better leaders

There are some interesting debates out there about the perceived qualities of good leaders based on sex difference. What is interesting however is what happens when women are leaders. When women are in leadership they are more likely to work across 'party-lines' - that is, more likely to work collaboratively. Women in the political leadership sphere actually improve the processes of political decision-making. Furthermore women are more likely to champion the causes relating to equality - such as ending gender based violence, equity in pay and speaking up on racial equality. Women actively seek to improve the lives of those in their 'care'. To exclude this element of leadership from the seats of power is a grave mistake and one that the world continues to suffer at the hands of. The bible is clear that this is non-negotiable (Proverbs 31: 8-9). The world is slowly waking up to this fact, and the Bible has told us numerous accounts of women in leadership positions (for example Deborah in Judges 4). This argument does not hold up to biblical or contemporary scrutiny. Men are not better leaders. Men and women need to jointly lead because together they are better.

To my mind it is better that complementarians simply say 'because the Bible says so'. There is no reasonable argument when you go down the 'qualities of men and women' route because it does not stand up to history or current discourse. Generalisations are not, and have never been helpful. In fact it is arguable that generalisations about the relative qualities of men and women have thrown the world into complete disarray. 

Mother does not simply mean nurturing any more than Father simply means to discipline. It is interesting to me that the beginning of wisdom involved mother and father. Proverbs 1:8 "Hear the instruction of your father and do not forget the teaching of your mother". We need both.

Hearing the Biblical instruction around women as elders is one (extremely important) thing but looking at the overall outworking of church in the Bible, it is difficult to see where this was actually established. The overall sense of the Bible is one of unity between the sexes. In leadership there can be no balance or completeness without mothers AND fathers. To exclude one is to upset the balance intended.



Bibliography (only a few but certainly writings which cause me to look further and think deeper)





Comments

  1. Jez Field4 December 2020 at 02:03

    Hey Michelle great post, lovely to see that you're a blogger :)

    Two quick things.

    1) I think it's important to distinguish between complementarianism and complementarity, the former being the application of the latter in the church and home. I'm pleased to hear you affirm complementarity, which in my view is self-evident and also vital that we appreciate in order for both sexes to fully flourish. The application of this difference in church and home is obviously where the challenge comes, and especially now since we are living in a time of huge social upheaval .The past 100 years have made the application questions a lot more live largely as a result of social and technological changes. Nevertheless if we affirm complementarity then some form of 'ism' surely follows, since we can at least recognise in principle that the natural differences do need to be taken into consideration in our application in various settings. This is probably where an ongoing conversation between scripture and particular cultures needs to happen.

    2) I'm afraid you misrepresent 'ism' however when you say that the argument is made that men are 'naturally' protectors and 'better' leaders. You rightly point out that this isn't necessarily the case. However neither do I think we need to just shrug our shoulders and say 'scripture says so'. God and his word is life giving and never arbitrary.

    Rather the argument is made that God holds Adam responsible, as a type of Christ, for the sin of Eve (and the whole world in fact), and that leadership is more about responsibility and duty than about power trips and gifting. I think this is particularly hard for us in a meritocritous (spelling!) society, but nevertheless it is the case that rule isn't about individual competency but about responsibility. And since Christ came as the second Adam we are all either under Adam's headship or Christ's. Husbands and elders are therefore meant to take that mantel upon them as under shepherds of the good shepherd. God gifts the body and no one part of the body can flourish without the all parts of the body using all their gifts, and that's to say nothing of office of leadership.

    Anyway, we can talk more :) but I just don't want you picking fights with straw men who a) can't defend themselves and b) I wouldn't want to endorse or defend either.

    BTW I know that some do use physiology as a way of making social sense of complementarianism (Jen Wilkins here: https://vimeo.com/243476316), but I think that's an extrapolation, that whilst helpful for some is to be recognised that it isn't actually an argument I see in scripture.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YouAreHerDaughters4 December 2020 at 02:35

      Hi Jez
      Thanks for replying :)
      Thats a really helpful distinction with complementarity and complementarianism which I hadn't considered. Thank you. I've no issue with natural differences between the sexes. An issue I find is where generalisations are made about those differences which ultimately preclude the different sexes (both male and female potentially) from flourishing.

      Perhaps my misrepresentation of the ism is that oftentimes when complementarian writers write, they fall into a meritocritous (??) way of explanation which isn't helpful either and serves to exacerbate the potentially straw man argument against it?

      Definitely talk more :)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Day Three 16 days - Exploited

Exploitation: "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work" The exploitation of women and girls represents the ultimate outcome of multiple layers of inequality. Women and girls are more likely to be in poverty, less likely to have an education, more likely to have suffered abuse at the hands of family members. Girls who have no access to school but need to work end up with no autonomy over workplace so are more vulnerable to being exploited by 'recruiters'. They are therefore disproportionately represented in modern slavery - 99% of victims of sexual exploitation are women and girls. One of the reasons modern slavery continues to proliferate is the gendered power imbalance which is upheld by patriarchal structures globally. Culture, some religious beliefs, laws, societal norms and gender roles all contribute to this power imbalance and this is clearly demonstrated in human trafficking where women are dehumanised to the extent t...
Read more

Thoughts on Elders - pronouns and tradition

Let me first start by saying that the only skin I have in this particular game is that I love to pick away at threads where I feel that patriarchal systems have sought to supress and 'keep women in their place' through an interpretation of the scriptures. I don't personally want to be an elder, nor do I think I necessarily fulfil all the requirements regardless. I do however believe that the church family and wider church is poorer for this prohibition and that is my motivation for this whole blog really.  That off my chest, for this post I wanted to put down in writing some of my thoughts on this so far. Also, they are just that, my thoughts so far and for this post I've landed on 'pronouns' and 'tradition'. I've come on a journey from a complementarian stance to a mutualist/egalitarian stance and I hope I am still learning and developing all the time. I've talked to MANY people about this and funnily enough it was a recent discussion about the ...
Read more

Thoughts on Elders - "For Adam was formed first, then Eve"

I'm back with more (personal!) thoughts on Elders. This time about 1 Tim 2:13 "For Adam was formed first, then Eve". See my previous post here focusing on 'Pronouns and Traditions'  based on 1 Tim 3:1-12. I think for some who have a complementarian stance, the linguistics of the passage in 1 Tim 3:1-12 are not so relevant an argument, it's more about what they see as the original principles of male headship, ergo male only elders. So if you truly believe that male headship is correct, then of course the linguistics of chapter 3 are irrelevant because you'd only see the explicit language as confirming the male bias. So headship. First up two things, I think it's interesting that male headship is not mentioned until Ephesians 5:23 (when Paul first used the term 'kephale'). I also think it's interesting that Jesus didn't mention headship at all and when he did talk about marriage, he said it in the context of the Eden blueprint of a husban...
Read more