I imagine that most of the regular readers of this blog are convinced complementarians. For that reason I don’t usually reiterate the biblical arguments for male leadership in the church and in the home. But from time to time it’s probably wise to re-visit the issue. First, because the cultural pressure is decidedly against complementarianism. We need our spines stiffened by Scripture more frequently than we realize. And second, because there may be those reading this blog (or those you know) who struggle with this issue and are looking for help. There may even be mild egalitarians open to being persuaded.

Over the next few days I want address complementarianism by examining what John Stott says about the issue in Chapter 12 (“Women, Men and God”) of his book Issues Facing Christians Today (4th Edition, Zondervan, 2006). I choose John Stott because: 1) I have the utmost respect for his ministry and general handling of the Scriptures, and 2) I know solid evangelicals who find his mediating not-quite-egalitarian-not-quite-complementarian view very attractive. As a general rule, when Stott speaks, evangelicals should listen. So if anyone could present a strong case for women elders and pastors, or something less than full blown complementarianism, surely John Stott could.

But in actuality, a close examination of Stott’s exegesis shows just how weak the middle-of-the-road position (not to mention the egalitarian position) really is.

Framing the Debate

Stott frames the gender debate, as he frames most debates, as an opportunity to find the golden mean between two extremes. On the one hand, women have long been oppressed by a male-dominated society so we must try to “understand their hurts, frustration and even rage” (325). In other words, we must listen to women. On the other hand, we must listen to Scripture too. The goal is to avoid denying the teaching of Scripture just to be relevant while also avoiding insensitivity to the people most affected by these issues.

Of course, every Christian should eschew insensitivity. That’s a fine caution. But when Stott goes on to quote approvingly (for two pages) several feminist authors, while also bemoaning the fact that there aren’t enough women in Congress, you get the distinct impression that Stott is going to try hard to make sure Scripture is not too offensive to those with feminist sensibilities. Because Stott sets out to steer a course between Scripture and women’s pain, he commits himself to avoiding any conclusions that might add to that pain. Whether this middle path is the right path remains to be seen.

Equality

Stott, with typical clarity and organizational skill, focuses on “four crucial words” (327). The first word is equality. Not surprisingly, Stott starts in Genesis, arguing from 1:26-28 that neither sex is more like God than the other or more responsible for the earth than the other (328). He goes on to show how Jesus honored women and treated them as equals. Later, Stott deals with Galatians 3:28. This passage, he says, does not eradicate all differences between men and women, but rather is a statement about our standing before God. The context is justification. All who by faith are in Christ are equally accepted by God and equally his children. No sex is superior or inferior to the other (332).

So far so good. But under this heading of equality Stott also makes a number of dubious claims.

1) In referencing some of the maternal language about God, Stott concludes that God “was simultaneously Israel’s Father and Mother” (329). I understand that Stott wants to do justice to the passages “which speak of God in feminine—and especially maternal—terms” but he’s not careful in how he does so. To recognize that Scripture sometimes uses maternal metaphors is not the same as saying Yahweh was Israel’s Mother. Naming is different than analogy or metaphor. God is a Father who gave birth to Israel and loves us like a nursing mother. But this does not make God “Mother” any more than Paul would have been called “Mother” after comparing himself to a gentle nursing mother among the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 2:7).

2) While Stott rightly points out that “the domination of woman by man is due to the fall, not to the creation” (330) he fails to make explicit that the desire by woman to rule man is also a result of the fall (Gen, 3:16; 4:7).

3) Most critically, Stott understands Pentecost to have caused the undoing of the effects of the fall and a restoration of creation-equality between the sexes. This point will loom large in the rest of his argument. Stott believes that what was perverted by the fall was recovered by redemption in Christ such that the original equality was re-established (332). I have no problem at all affirming the creation-equality of the sexes, but I’m not sure it was eradicated and then re-created. The relationship between men and women faces difficulties, and always will, because the whole creation still labors under the curse. I don’t think Stott’s Pentecost argument can carry the freight he wants it too.

Complementarity

We now come to the second word: complementarity. Stott once again starts off on solid ground. He affirms that “equality of worth is not identity of role” (333). But then he quickly adds the caveat that “we must be careful not to acquiesce uncritically in [the] stereotypes” (333). After two paragraphs of this caveat (including a favorable quote from Betty Friedan) he turns to Genesis 2:18-22 where we see men and women are “equal but different” (334). They are equal in dignity and yet possess distinctives.

Just when you think Stott will explain those distinctives, he quickly retreats again to explain that defining these distincitives is very difficult. He rejects Mars and Venus kinds of stereotypes. He denies that there is a certain masculine personality. Eventually he turns to Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen and her notion that “Christian men must be ready to substitute biblical notions of responsibility and service for the dubious ideals of the male code of honour that keeps reinventing itself, Hydra-like, in every generation” (336). After more criticism of “the honour code of the warrior” Stott finally comes around to his definition of complementarity: men and women both guard shalom. “Here we come back to the complementarity of men and women as well as to their equality, for it is only when we recover the face that the creation and the cultural mandate is given to both, and when men reject the concept of unlimited economic growth, that we will create the space for the gifts of women, the importance of family life and the rightful place of the gifts of God to the world of shalom” (336). In the end, Stott concludes we should not think of “opposite sexes” but neighboring sexes.

What happened here? Stott never talked about the pertinent scriptures in Genesis 1-3, that Adam’s name was given for humanity, that Adam had responsibility for naming the animals, that Adam was created first, that Adam was held responsible for couple’s sin, that Eve was designated a helper for Adam and not the other way around. Instead of finding his definition of complementarity in the text, Stott goes out of his way to make sure we don’t have too rigid of a view of gender distinctions. And he concludes by urging us to guard shalom together as neighboring sexes. He’s done nothing to demonstrate how men and women are different and everything to back away from the implications of the differences he says he affirms. His commitment to a vague, overarching equality has blinded him to the glorious particularities of complementarity.

Print Friendly

Comments:


55 thoughts on “Go Big or Go Home: Why Complemegalitarian Doesn’t Work (1)”

  1. Sue says:

    Emily,

    I don’t remember you saying that a woman should submit to abuse.

    Somehow I just felt that this was an assumption in complementarianism because of what I have heard, that a woman should endure verbal abuse submissively, and only after more than one episode of violence, go for help. But there are many ways that a man can override a woman’s concern for her children, or family resources or proper conduct in any other area.

    Anyway, for some women the answer is to leave, but I wish that the church would preach mutuality first. Just something on my wishlist.

  2. KR Wordgazer says:

    I have always been amazed that complementarians will take this position:

    “It requires page after page of telling you that the text does not say what it says, which will always be the fundamental flaw of the egalitarian position.”

    — and then will spend page after page telling you themselves that the text does not say Junia was both a woman and an apostle. They will also spend page after page explaining how “submit to one another” in Ephesians 5:21 doesn’t mean “one another” but only “some to others.”

    Complementarians will insist on a “plain meaning” in 1 Tim. 2 such that women may not hold teaching/authoritative positions over men, but then deny the “plain meaning” a few verses later on that says women are saved by having babies. They will insist the passage means women are never at any time in history to teach men, but consider the command that men raise their hands when they pray (a verse earlier) as something temporary, that men need not follow today. The fact is that none of us uses the “plain sense” meaning all the time and in every circumstance. It therefore gets a bit old to have complementarians insist that they are the ones who ALWAYS follow exactly what the Bible says, and that egalitarians don’t.

    PS. I am sincerely hoping that the commenter who said “homosexuals” are abominations and on a par with Satan, didn’t mean that. “Homosexuals” are people, not abominations. Regardless of anyone’s opinion on their behavior, they are human beings for whom Christ thought it fit to suffer and die.

  3. Radiance says:

    “On the one hand, women have long been oppressed by a male-dominated society so we must try to “understand their hurts, frustration and even rage” (325). In other words, we must listen to women. On the other hand, we must listen to Scripture too.”

    I believe Kevin DeYoung needs to caution against having an reflexive, “reactionary” attitude towards such concerns expressed by John Stott.

    What DeYoung’s attitude creates is an atmosphere where believers’ valid concerns are immediately suspect as liberal hogwash, or “bordering” on liberal hogwash simply for posing a challenge.

    This is why many have a problem with the title “Council of ‘Biblical’ Manhood and Womanhood.” Implicit in the title is the idea that any mere challenge to the opinions of this group of self-appointed fallen men and women, is automatically “unbiblical.” This is flat out false, as even complementarians don’t agree with each other on everything 100% of the time.

    For CENTURIES, the Christian church justified the practices of slavery and racial segregation, often using the Bible to do so. It is a fact of history that during the 1960’s, “evil liberals” were the ones who walked with Martin Luther King Jr.

    This truth should humble us and open our eyes to the fact that often, believers do not have a monopoly on the truths of God, as Romans 1 so aptly reminds us. For example: Karl Marx may have been an atheist, but he made many valid points against rampant capitalism and the trappings of wealth, that most Christians will see do not contradict Biblical thinking at all. Even liberal “Emergents” make valid points about social justice.

    In other words, “common grace” is indiscriminate and as Romans 1 validates, the truth about God is plain to all people by virtue of observing His creation and the truths at work in it.

    Deyoung also said:

    2) While Stott rightly points out that “the domination of woman by man is due to the fall, not to the creation” (330) he fails to make explicit that the desire by woman to rule man is also a result of the fall (Gen, 3:16; 4:7).

    I believe this is the equivalent to saying, “Well, I know black people have been discriminated against, but white people have been too.”

    Some complementarians in America show that their worldview is far more conditioned by their comfortable, modern, middle-class suburbanite realities than by a thorough navigation of all the complexities of fallen humanity.

    It is for this reason that “the female pastor down the street” draws more ire and concern for some, than “the rape victim in Sudan” or the mutilated Muslim girl abused in the name of a religion based on a demonic distortion of the word “submission.” (“Islam” means “submission.”)

    Once we get out of our “modern American” bubble, we will truly understand just how far-reaching the curse of Genesis 3 has been and continues to be, and approach the subject of gender with the sensitivity and humility it deserves.

    Finally, I wanted to say the issues Stott brings up reflect the heart of a growing number of complementarian women such as myself.

    “I embrace male headship in home and church as a very functional consideration much like how the theological term of economy is understood, but I do not believe that women have so many of the tight restrictions that complementarian doctrine has placed upon them.” ~ Cynthia Kunsman

    http://www.undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/

    And here is a website of complementarian women pointing out the problems that arise from complementarian idolatry:

    http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2009/07/complementarian-idolatry.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Kevin DeYoung


Kevin DeYoung is senior pastor of University Reformed Church (RCA) in East Lansing, Michigan, near Michigan State University. He and his wife Trisha have six young children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books