Questioning Complementarianism

Anthology Coffee in Detroit, MI - Photo by: Young Yi

Preamble

When I listened to this episode of Theology In The Raw with Dr.

Nijay K. Gupta

, I felt a sense of connection to his journey away from being a complementarian to egalitarian. There is much more than meets the eye when it comes to the conversation about complementarian vs. egalitarian. In my humble opinion, it includes, but also goes a bit beyond the conversation about women in ministry. This conversation deals with not just the dignity and equality of women, but the power dynamics that are at play when we impose certain theological frameworks and paradigms within our churches and homes. It’s about what happens in the real world, among the real lives of people as we extract principles and theological frameworks from both the Old and New Testament and tell people, “this is how you ought to live.” That being said, I personally don’t know if I am an egalitarian, but I do know I have many questions about the beliefs of complementarianism and the unhealthy dynamic between men and women it breeds within churches, ministry spaces, and the home.

This is the main point of today’s article.

It sounds silly as I say it in my mind and type out these words, but, I’ve been a complementarian since my journey of intentionally forming a theological framework began back in 2012. I know it’s only 12 years ago and I have many more years ahead. At age 32 now, leading a church plant, having graduated with a Master of Divinity, I feel like I should have it all together theologically, but alas, here I am questioning and poking holes in a critical part of my current framework and system.

I think everyone should take a hard look at their beliefs and give it a good old update, if needed. My degree from MTS is in spiritual formation and discipleship, but I particularly fancied apologetics ever since 2012 and in that Christian discipline, one of the best practices was that of questioning your beliefs. To leave no stone unturned in the journey of understand who God is, His plans for humanity’s flourishing, and how we can be a force for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to expand to the ends of the earth. We owe it to ourselves, to God, and especially our neighbor to leave no stone unturned when it comes to understanding the Holy Scriptures and the theology it contains because inaccurate theology can lead to spiritual malpractice and accurate theology can lead to spiritual flourishing.

And with that, I have come to a point where my grappling with the doctrine of complementarianism, the theological framework it produces, and the praxis of it in the church and home must genuinely begin. If you’re willing to tag along for this journey - in this article and more to come - just be prepared for a lot of questions. Maybe you’ve asked them yourself or maybe you’re hearing them for the first time. Regardless, don’t be afraid of interacting with me in the digital space or in person if I see you, especially if you disagree with me.

One more disclaimer before I jump in: I am on the same page as

Kirsten Sanders

with her post titled, “Let’s Retire Some Terms,” where she provides her thoughts on how complementarianism and egalitarianism are both broken. I particularly agree with this statement:

“But just as complementarianism has oversold its good by making universal claims about women’s roles outside of the local church, egaliatarianism has also become too expansive. It seeks to sell itself as the school that “supports women” and affirms their inherent value and dignity before God. Egalitarians sometimes explicitly say that complementarians cannot value the image of God in women, or that they see women as ontologically lesser. Though I am sure certain people-who-are-complementarians make this argument, that does not mean it is intrinsic to complementarianism broadly.”

I agree. Not just with that one point, but her entire post. Well worth your read.

In my preparation for this article, I also came across

Dani Treweek

’s post from 2022 titled, “Will The Real Complementarians Please Stand Up? (Part Two)? She gives a very helpful case defending and explaining the Danvers Statement regarding Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, where the term “complementarian” was officially coined. Her entire treatment of some misconceptions around the term, “complementarian” was very insightful and actually answered a question or two I had regarding its origins!

Here are a few thoughts before we take the deep plunge in:

• I’m genuinely trying to figure this one out. Why? Because I’ve seen too many women (and some men) get hurt deeply by a malpractice of complementarian ideology in the church and home. And if this framework is doing deep, traumatic damage to our sisters and brothers in Christ, then we must figure out what kind of people we are becoming as we partake in it and what about this paradigm leads people down a path of pain and trauma.

• I know many complementarians, both men and women, who live their lives in accordance to this doctrine in very healthy ways and I have the upmost respect for them.

• Being a complementarian does not automatically deem someone to be a misogynist. Let me say that loud and clear! And nor does being an egalitarian automatically deem you to be a progressive Christian.

• Human dynamics are far too complex to categorize their nuanced differences within the confines of two broad terms such as complementarian or egalitarian. With that, I find these terms unhelpful and slowly becoming outdated because they carry too much baggage with them.

• I am a complementarian in that I do believe men and women are complementarily different physiologically, which dictates some but not all gender roles (e.g. child-bearing). However, I remain unconvinced to believe all passages regarding this issue have been accurately interpreted and applied in the church and home as it pertains to dynamics between men and women, along with husbands and wives.

Questioning Complementarianism

So where does that leave me? With questions, so here they are…

1. When God gave equal dominion to both Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:28), why don't we operate from this Biblical standpoint/reality in our homes and churches?

   1. I’ve read many writings from complementarians defending their position. When you look at the Danvers Statement, I do not believe they ever footnote Genesis 1:28. Am I missing something here? Most of their positions find their root in passages such as Gen 1:21-24, 26-27, 2:18; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14, but nothing from Genesis 1:28. Which leads to my next question.

2. Why does complementarianism in the home and church usually end up turning into hierarchicalism? Is it fair to say “complementarianism” was just a facade for hierarchicalism?

   1. Contextually, interpreting Genesis 1:28 (as stated above) in light of the complementarian-egalitarian debate is culturally relevant because most people’s contention with complementarianism is that in theory it follows what is stated in the Danvers Statement - that men and women are equal in dignity - but in practice, it enables a form of hierarchicalism (which the Danvers Statement denounces) that may keep equality of dignity in tact, but eliminates any form of equality in power between man and woman.

3. Where in the Bible (1 Cor. 11:2-16, Eph. 5:22-32) does it say that men ultimately make the final decision (when it comes to the big decisions) in the home? How did this become a core tenant of complementarianism?

   1. Short story: I was speaking to a freshman female college student a few years ago and we were discussing gender roles in a Christian dating situation. She ultimately stated that if it came down to her and her boyfriend having to make a big decision, he would be in charge of making that decision. A feeling of sadness overcame my heart, as I saw what complementarian doctrine was doing to the formation of young women.

   2. I am genuinely asking this follow-up question: what if the husband, out of a love for his wife as Christ loved the Church, laid down his preference to make all of the decisions in a marriage, is that allowed? I know some complementarians would say he is being passive and deferential, but what about obedient to the text? Is he not?

4. What literary and theological evidence is present in 1 Timothy 2:8-15, that shows the switch between a limited, time-bound instruction from Paul to the Church in Ephesus (where Timothy was pastoring) from vv.8-10 and then to a universal principle and instruction for the Church (not just the Ephesian Church) in vv.11-15?

5. Does switching over to egalitarianism actually lead to liberal theology/progressive Christianity?