Complementarianism (analysis)

This one's a little longer, but it mentions both Mr. Darcy and righteous prostitution (though thankfully not in connection with one another).

I like complementarianism. I think it boldly speaks to several unpopular Biblical truths. For one, all people were not created equal. A single glance at a high school yearbook is enough to tell you that “God does not value intellectual or aesthetic equality among people.” (Piper, Grudem) Furthermore, men and women are undeniably different and they are different in ways modern feminists (myself included) don’t like to admit. The chick flick, timelessly popular and almost always as anti-feminist as fiction can be, proves that there is something to the Biblical assertion that that which is masculine should protect and lead that which is feminine. You’ll note that Mr. Darcy is the one with 10,000 pounds a year, saves Elizabeth’s family from ruin, and who takes all the initiative in the relationship.

Biblically speaking, complementarianism addresses important issues about creation order and the word “helper.” It incorporates I Tim 2 with ease and manages I Corinthians 11 with aplomb. As far as views about women in the church go, it’s a bold one.

Bold, but, in my opinion inadvisable. However much I like complementarianism, I can’t subscribe to it: it simply has too many inferences, too many ifs, too much reading into what isn’t there rather than what is—and too much trouble with reality. Even complementarians don’t actually live like complementarians these days. Most wives do an awful lot of initiating in relationships and very few husbands, complementarians or not, expect their wives to submit their wants and needs fully to them—without the husband himself coming to the table with the mindset of mutual submission. Moreover, a black and white view like traditional complementarianism lends itself to harmful generalizations that do not address the complexity found in men and women separately as well as their relations.

Many of the same verses the egalitarians struggle with, are problematic (sometimes more so) for the complementarians. Whereas egalitarians have a ready answer for the morass that is I Corinthians 14, complementarians remain unable to uniformly defend verses 34 and 35: “…women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak . . . If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” Never mind the argumentation that starts with, “Does not the very nature of things…”

Perhaps the biggest problem I see with complementarianism is with its results. Though in essence it upholds the dignity and value of women, this fact gets lost in the mess between what is cultural and Biblical. I hope I don’t sound too simplistic when I say it is very hard to separate the Biblical portrayal of femininity from the many different cultural portrayals dealt with in the Bible, particularly when you consider the 180 our culture has taken from past cultures’ portrayals of femininity. The Bible does not directly answer the question “What is femininity (or masculinity)?”

Complementarians are concerned about the “strain on the humanity” of men and women who deny traditional gender roles, but bigotry and sexism festers in the meanwhile. (Piper, Grudem) When a young woman serves communion at her church, when a seminary-trained college professor gives a guest sermon, when women voice their opinions in the church, the reaction should never be wrath and bile. Yet in complementarian churches, that is exactly what is stirred up, rather than peaceful debate over the issues raised, a searching of the scriptures. Furthermore, complementarianism does not encourage women to take charge and be strong and that is unforgiveable. The superwoman from Proverbs 31 needs serious leadership skills and a church that is willing to nurture that within her.

While I admire complementarianism for searching out tough Biblical truths and defending them to the best of their God-given abilities, I am disappointed by their inability to accept other Biblical complexities about right and wrong. The mess that is the history of God’s people is proof enough of the existence of shady gray spaces: Tamar rightfully posing as a prostitute in order to sleep with her father-in-law, for example.

In the end complementarianism has a lot of integrity and truth to it. But today’s Christians need their church to be not only bold, but willing to admit weakness and fallibility. Crazy gifts—both the extravagant perfume-to-the-feet kind and the talent for wise leadership wielded wielded by an Old Testament Judge —are staples of the Bible, and we would do well to have flexibility toward those seeking to serve God in whatever way they feel called. Unlike Jesus, complementarians trade hospitality for the hardline and that benefits no one.

Complentarianism (the sparknotes)

For:

• non-Christians who don't understand what and how complementarians believe as they do.
• Christian egalitarians who think their complementarian siblings in Christ have lost their minds. 
• complementarians, who perhaps haven't researched their own position.

The complementarian or traditional view (summarized from John Piper and Wayne Grudem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) holds that a person’s “sexuality permeates one’s individual being to its very depths.” To deny the behavioral patterns implied by this “profound dimension of your personhood” dishonors both a person and his or her maker, putting “strain on the humanity” of men and women alike. “Men and women are of equal value and dignity in the eyes of God,” having both been made in His image and although they have different roles, it should be noted that “[t]here is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth.” The insistence that leadership or authority is positive while submission is negative, is purely secular and unbiblical. Men and women both ought to conform to God’s design because this is “fulfilling in the deepest sense of the word.”

Biblical masculinity is a sense of “benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women” within the context of their varied relationships. This masculinity “accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements” and accepts responsibility for the family’s spirituality. Men should set a “general tone and pattern of initiative” in relationships with women.

Biblical femininity is “a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worth men” within the context of their varied relationships. Even if a woman might be in a position of authority over a man (a principle over male teacher, for example), she should affirm his unique role to protect and lead her through a general disposition to yield. Wives should act as though“[her husband’s] needs set [her] agenda.”

 These beliefs are undoubtedly countercultural, but are derived mainly from the Genesis creation account of mankind. Man was created first and enjoyed a special relationship with God. It was Adam alone who named the animals in the garden and to Adam alone that God ordered not to eat of the tree of good and evil. (Genesis 2) Woman was created “for man,” not man for woman (I Cor 11:2). He named her, she came from her. Several of the early church letters encourage women to submit to the authority of the male counterparts in both marriage and worship practices. (I Tim 2:11-15, I Cor 11 and 14) No women were chosen as leaders or apostles in the gospels, nor were any of the original seven deacons women. (Acts 7)

Have I lost you all to boredom yet? Hopefully not. For my opinion/analysis, check out part 2.