Know better, do better; further thoughts on complementarity

Keen as ever to have a firmer grip on what my beliefs are, it is always worth looping around every now and then and thinking and reconsidering a stance. I do the same in my midwifery role too and challenging deeply held beliefs is an important way of staying fresh and focused. And in the same way that midwifery is a continually emerging field of research, the same is true for this topic area in Christianity. The more we learn and scrutinise our practices and the way we understand the world, the better we are able to be and the better our care towards others. In the immortal words of Maya Angelou, "When you know better, you do better". 

As a woman who has been brought up in the complementarian sphere, my journey into the egalitarian camp has been a somewhat tumultuous one. At points it has almost felt too hard to stay in this new 'camp'. Surrounded as I am by good people who hold the complementarian set of beliefs with such conviction, it is impossible not to confronted by the 'what ifs' on a regular basis.

A spectrum of beliefs

Both complementarian and egalitarian stances are theological arguments and you will find neither word in the Bible. They are, if you like, models created by humans to explain behaviours or sets of beliefs. Like all models, there are variations even within a belief system, usually on an extremity spectrum. In the UK generally we are fortunate that even within the complementarian belief system, the extremes seen more regularly in the US are less common here. It would be disingenuous therefore of me to apply extreme US norms to the UK experience and so I draw my observations from my own UK experience.

It's always difficult to name a model and it's kind of a shame that the comp 'camp' took ownership of the word 'complementarity' as I would go as far as saying that both believe in the complementarity of the sexes. That God created men and women with differences seen both physically and psychologically. Together, male and female, when working together achieve what God intended on the earth, His creation. When God created man, he saw that it (His creation) was good. Then when He created woman, he said that 'they' were VERY good. Together they represent the image of God and together they accomplish and flourish. However this is where they (the models) quickly move away from one another.

In complementarity it is held that the sexes are indeed equal in worth and that the sexes 'complement' each other. However the differences are extended to roles and in particular, roles of leadership in the church and the family. It is also true to say that complementarians hold to a patriarchal view but that naturally, this is seen as a protective stance and not as it has come to be seen as in contemporary culture as oppressive. Some key bible verses for complementarians found in in Ephesians 5 (Wives submit.... husbands love....as Christ loved) and 1 Timothy 2 (a woman should learn in quietness etc) are seen as evidence that men have leadership responsibility for women and that women should submit to male leadership in the home and in church. In my experience of 'soft' complementarity, this essentially translates as while women can hold leadership positions in church, only men can be pastors and elders, and the father is the head of the family at home with the wife submitting to the husband. 

Egalitarians hold that both men and women can hold any position of leadership within the church and that in the home, there is both joint leadership and submission. It is seen in Galatians, the book prior to Ephesians, that "there is no Jew, gentile, slave, free, male, female... you are all one in Christ". And then in Ephesians 5, immediately prior to the 'wives submit' verse, that we are all to "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ". The church in Ephesus was doing battle with those who pursued power and control as well as a legacy of goddess worship in the area. It is inadvisable to take a verse out of context and apply it to all women, for all time.

Responsibility and accountability

For many years I have grappled with what complementarity means in practice and have yet to hear a convincing argument about how complementarity benefits a married couple, or indeed, a church. The idea of spiritual headship is bizarre to me. My husband is in no way responsible for my salvation or for my walk with Jesus. I submit myself to the leadership of my church (regardless of their gender) and understand that teachers and pastors will be held to a higher account for their teaching of the Word. But they are no more responsible for my salvation or walk with Christ than my husband. If I chose to stray, spiritually speaking, that is not on either my husband or the church leadership. I take full responsibility for my own walk, and for my salvation I am answerable only to Christ (Acts 4:12). This is not to say that Christians in a community are independent of one another, there should be no one in need between us and we are to encourage and build one another up, humbling ourselves to one another, and learning together (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Philippians 1:27-2:18). There is also no doubt that church leaders are called to emulate Christ and lay themselves down for their flock, but this is not exclusive to male believers or leaders. 

Sadly, history is littered with accounts of male on female abuse both outside and inside of the church. Historically women have failed to flourish because they have not been permitted to do so within the walls of the church and marriage. I wonder sometimes how many people have failed to learn about Jesus because a woman was prevented from learning or leading. We live in a world where women are dominated, abused, passed over, underpaid, exploited and killed by men at a rate which far exceeds the reverse. Power by one sex over another is dangerous. Humanity cannot be trusted with power. Only God can be trusted with power.

Finally, my responsibility in mutual submission with my husband is to put his needs before my own, knowing he is doing the same (Ephesians 5:20). That is called love, and love is not hierarchical in any way, shape or form (my paraphrase, 1 Corinthians 13:4-8). In fact we are commanded in Matthew (20:25-28), not to seek power over others. Mutual submission is a beautiful picture of both parties favouring the other, helping one another to live in the full expression of their giftings with the only authority being in Christ alone. One-way submission robs a marriage of this image.

In light of my musings, the uncomfortable position I land in is this. Why would you want to align yourself with one over the other? Both stances are the result of multitudes of very intelligent people studying the scriptures. There are extremely compelling arguments to be had on both sides of the fence and since the words do not actually exist in the Bible, it is down to exegesis of the scriptures as to where a person 'falls' on the matter. I have read a great many arguments on both sides and all authors are equally convinced of their arguments, and, convincing. I know many complementarians who would agree with my description of what marriage and community looks like and yet still align themselves with that model.

So what draws a person to a particular model and why? Or to put it in a rather blunt way, who benefits? That is a rhetorical question.