The Problem With Complementarianism
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
-Ephesians 5:31-33, ESV
The words we use are important. The Holy Spirit does not reveal Himself to us by silent visions, feelings, or premonitions. Instead, He caused authors to write specific words—and those words have meanings. Therefore, when we choose a word for a theological position—a word to summarize what the Word says—we must be careful to ensure that the word we choose actually accomplishes that purpose. In rightly seeking to combat feminism in the American church, a poorly-chosen word has undermined the very position it was supposed to uphold. That word is “complementarianism”. This post will examine why the term is deficient and what terminology better describes what Scripture teaches.
Complementarianism Defined
Whenever false doctrines threaten the Church, godly men examine the Scriptures and then clearly define what they teach. Otherwise, these false doctrines would destroy the Church. Near the end of the Twentieth Century, godly men saw that feminism was just such a threat. Feminists have always denied what Scripture teaches about gender and therefore denied the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.[1] God made us distinctly male and female, but feminism denies most distinctions between men and women, while holding that any remaining distinctions were not created by God as very good but were instead the result of the Fall. Therefore, feminists think a woman should now be able to do everything a man can do. This is egalitarianism.[2]
Since a clear reading of Scripture opposes egalitarianism, feminists must either deny Scripture outright or fabricate creative reinterpretations in order to make Scripture support them.[3] Both approaches have been prevalent in the broader American church for the past half century, undermining the institutions God created as good—family, church, and society. Thus, egalitarianism is just another way of asking “did God really say?”.
Godly men recognized this wickedness for what it was and sought to combat it by clearly stating what Scripture has always taught. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood produced the Danvers Statement, which clearly stated that there is inherent distinction—and therefore inherently different roles—between men and women. Their position was explained in detail in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Before I proceed, I want to acknowledge that I have long found this book helpful. It is theologically rich and thorough while being written in an accessible manner. Even though I am about to critique parts of it, I continue to recommend it as part of anyone’s study on the topic.
To combat egalitarianism, the council coined the term “complementarianism”. According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary, complementarianism “holds that women and men are spiritually equal but have distinct and complementary roles in the home, church, and wider society. This view stands in opposition to egalitarianism, which holds that men and women have equivalent roles”.[4] Derek and Dianne Tidball elaborate that “while men and women are of equal worth and enjoy equal status before God they were created to fulfil different roles and functions, in other words, to complement each other”.[5] The Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC) statement on the doctrine of man doesn’t use the term but is clearly complementarian: “God made mankind in two complementary genders of male and female who are equal in dignity and worth. Men are called to roles of spiritual leadership particularly in the home and in the church. Women are called to respond to and affirm godly servant leadership particularly in the church and home.” All of these statements reflect what Scripture teaches, so I can affirm them. So, what is the problem?
A Problematic Definition
The problem with complementarianism starts with omission. Note the lack of reference to authority or submission, despite the fact that these concepts are found throughout the New Testament. Their omission was intentional. When Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was written, Piper and Grudem believed that the vast majority of evangelicals did not embrace feminist reinterpretations of Scripture, so they saw no need to close every possible loophole for feminism by adopting clear terms such as “authority” and “patriarchy”.[6] In fact, they wanted to distance themselves from such “traditional” terminology, which is what led them to coin the term “complementarianism”:
Our vision is not entirely the same as a “traditional view.” We affirm that the evangelical feminist movement has pointed out many selfish and hurtful practices that have previously gone unquestioned. But we hope that this new vision—a vision of biblical “complementarity”—will both correct the previous mistakes and avoid the opposite mistakes that come from the feminist blurring of God-given sexual distinctions …. If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence.
-John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “Preface (1991)” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (ed.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2021: 14-15.
Piper and Grudem clearly intended for the term to describe a position somewhere between egalitarianism and what they called a “traditional view”. Like their feminist opponents, they associated this traditional view with “selfish and hurtful practices” of the past. It is undeniable that much abuse and oppression of women has occurred throughout history, which we often attribute to “traditional views” on gender. But we must let Scripture interpret history—not vice versa. When examining any such topic, we must ensure we understand what Scripture teaches about it in the context of redemptive history.
In this case, that means understanding how God created us as male and female and then acknowledging the implications of that. God created Adam first, gave him authority, entered into covenant with him, and then created Eve as the suitable helper for him. Adam named her—an act demonstrating authority—and taught her the commands of God’s covenant. Therefore, God not only created mankind as distinctly male and female, but He also created the relationship between them as a hierarchy with authority. Paul reinforces this by describing the institution of marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32). Jesus Christ has authority over the Church, and the Church submits to that authority. God instituted marriage before the Fall to communicate this truth, and it will remain true into eternity when sin is no more. Therefore, hierarchy and authority were part of what God created as “very good”. This is true regardless of past or present abuses of this hierarchy.
As faithful Bible teachers respected by many—including by me—Piper and Grudem would likely acknowledge this. However, they chose to avoid it in defining their position. They like many complementarians focus on the equal value but differing roles of men and women while downplaying or avoiding any reference to hierarchy or authority. They did this because they assumed that most of their audience had rejected feminism and would therefore be able to hold the middle ground between egalitarianism and traditionalism without needing to address hierarchy. This assumption was flawed.
Loopholes for Feminism
Piper and Grudem underestimated the scope and scale of feminism’s influence on the Church. For two centuries, the American church and culture have marinated in feminism. By the time the council met, the core tenets of feminism had long been accepted as truth by the culture at large. The individualism we discussed recently is just one example of this. Whether churches acknowledge it or not, they have been impacted by feminism and often unwittingly view Scripture through a feminist lens. By avoiding terms of hierarchy and authority, Piper and Grudem created loopholes for people to view their work through that feminist lens.
The first complementarian loophole is emphasizing the fact that men and women equally bear the image of God. This is certainly true, but this equality is often misunderstood as sameness. Rather, men and women were created distinctly in God’s image, displaying that image in different ways. This could be described as inequality, even though it in no way communicates unequal dignity or value.[7] Feminists have long defined equality as sameness, so this emphasis opens the door to an egalitarian reinterpretation.
Complementarians often downplay submission as well. They emphasize the mutual submission of Ephesians 5:21, which exhorts all Christians to submit to one another. In my leadership paper, I essentially defined submission in the same way—as putting the needs of others and their ultimate good ahead of your own. In this sense, a husband’s sacrificial love would be a form of submission. However, this general form of submission is often emphasized to the detriment of the more specific submission Paul has in view in the rest of the passage. When I addressed the topic of submission in the church, workplace, and community, I observed that in any hierarchy, submission requires both respect and obedience. Marriage was instituted by God as a hierarchy, so submission in marriage is not mutual but requires a wife to respect and obey her husband. In other words, while a husband and wife “submit to one another” by prioritizing the other as brother and sister in Christ, a wife fulfilling her role submits to (respects and obeys) her husband, but a husband fulfilling his role does not submit to (obey) his wife.[8] By overemphasizing mutual submission and downplaying its required respect and obedience within hierarchies, the language of submission can be used to support egalitarianism.
A second loophole is narrow complementarianism that interprets the limitations on women’s roles as narrowly as possible, downplays male headship in the home, and severely restricts or even denies male headship outside of the home and church. Narrow complementarianism limits the prohibitions against women speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) to the First Century and interprets the prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority over men (1 Timothy 2:8-15) so narrowly that it opens the door to women preaching and teaching in virtually any circumstance—just like egalitarianism.[9] It also downplays male headship in the home by using “leadership” instead of terms like “authority” and “rule”.[10] For example, the ACBC statement I quoted earlier speaks of men being called to “spiritual leadership” and women being called to “respond to and affirm godly servant leadership”. While that is certainly true—and I wholeheartedly affirm it when the terms are properly understood—it can be easily misconstrued to essentially deny a husband’s authority and give his wife license to disobey and dishonor him whenever she determines that he is not being a godly servant leader.
Furthermore, narrow complementarianism either downplays or denies the distinction between men and women outside of the home and church.[11]This creates a logical inconsistency. If gender roles come from the inherent differences between men and women, then those differences will impact all of life. Arguing that gender roles exist only or primarily in the home and church while downplaying or denying their existence in the workplace and society undermines the argument that gender roles are rooted in creation. This results in a position that women can do almost everything men can do, which is dangerously close to egalitarianism.
One final loophole in complementarianism is the name itself. Zachary Garris described it as “clunky” and noted that feminists have even adopted it to describe their own position.[12] These loopholes have allowed complementarianism to be reinterpreted into egalitarianism, resulting in complementarian practice that is “functionally egalitarian”.
In short, the loopholes created by the attempt to maintain distance from “traditionalism” has resulted in a complementarian position that is much closer to the egalitarianism it opposes than to what Scripture actually teaches. While the complementarian position is an improvement over egalitarianism, we need a new term to describe the true biblical position on manhood and womanhood.
Embrace Patriarchy
If complementarianism does not adequately define the biblical view of manhood and womanhood, what term should we use instead? Elyse Fitzpatrick proposed “reciprocitarian”, but realized that it is equally clunky and chose “Christic” (Christlike) instead.[13] But this term tells us nothing. All Christians believe their views are Christic. We need a term that acknowledges the fact that men and women are both made in the image of God with differing roles rooted in that nature—like complementarians intended to do. But we also need a term that acknowledges the hierarchies that God instituted and how men and women are to act within those hierarchies. Piper and Grudem were right to avoid “traditionalism” for its implied emphasis of tradition over Scripture. They were also right to shy away from “hierarchicalism”. While I disagree with their objection to “structured authority”, the term says nothing about the nature of men and women. We need a term that does both. We have such a term—patriarchy.
Many will balk at the very suggestion of using “patriarchy” because of its longstanding negative connotations. Even in Reformed circles, it has been defined as an “authority system that oppresses and subordinates women through social, political, and economic institutions and practices”.[14] But patriarchy simply means “father rule”. When understood biblically, it accomplishes exactly what we need. It acknowledges the distinction between men and women, God’s instituted hierarchies, and the calling of men to take on the responsibilities and associated authority atop those hierarchies. Plus, the feminist repulsion to the term makes them unlikely to hijack it. We should therefore embrace this term that is so central to Christianity:
Christianity is patriarchal. It is about a God who has authority over all of creation. God sent His Son to redeem His church, and in doing so, He restores the order of creation. God has put authority structures in place in this world, and He is at the top. Christianity is hierarchical, and since it puts man in authority over woman, it is also patriarchal. Rejecting patriarchy means rejecting not only God’s revelation of male-female relationships, but also God Himself—the ultimate Patriarch.
-Zachary M. Garris, Masculine Christianity, Ann Arbor, MI: Reformation Zion Publishing: 2021: 76.
Patriarchy is the appropriate term to summarize what Scripture teaches about manhood and womanhood, so we should use it instead of complementarianism. To differentiate it from the patriarchy that is truly oppressive, we can call it “biblical patriarchy”. Next time, we will discuss biblical patriarchy in more detail to find that it has been part of God’s good design from the beginning. We will see that God is the Good Patriarch, and all human patriarchs who honor and obey Him will not oppress but bless those under their care. I realize changing our vernacular can be a difficult transition and that we will face opposition for using the term “patriarchy” positively, but it is necessary and worth the effort.
Conclusion and Personal Application
Complementarianism’s flaws have caused many of its adherents to migrate away from Scripture toward the feminism it was supposed to counter. Nevertheless, while complementarianism has significant flaws, when properly understood it is far more biblical than egalitarianism. Still, biblical patriarchy is a much better term, so we should use it instead—and I must start with myself. In the first blog post of my marriage series, I referred to complementarianism as “very good” and described a “proper complementarian view”. I have since removed those references. In the same post, I referred to patriarchy in a negative way, which I have also revised. I have likewise updated the reference to complementarianism on my theology page. I made these changes because words matter, and I want mine to be accurate. So instead of apologizing for the Bible’s language by using unclear terms like complementarianism, let’s embrace biblical patriarchy.
NOTES
[1] For more thorough coverage of the rise of feminism in the church, see Zachary Garris’s Masculine Christianity and Honor Thy Fathers, Rebekah Merkle’s Eve in Exile, Leon Podles’s The Church Impotent, and Joe Rigney’s Leadership and Emotional Sabotage.
[2] Derek Tidball and Dianne Tidball, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace and Gender in Alec Motyer, John Stott, and Derek Tidball (ed.), The Bible Speaks Today: Bible Themes Series, Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press: 2012: 26.
[3] Marie-There S Wacker, “Feminist Criticism and Related Aspects,” in J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press: 2006: 635–636.
[4] John D. Barry et al. (eds.), “Complementarianism,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press: 2016.
[5] Derek Tidball and Dianne Tidball, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace and Gender in Alec Motyer, John Stott, and Derek Tidball (ed.), The Bible Speaks Today: Bible Themes Series, Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press: 2012: 26.
[6] John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “Preface (1991)” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (eds.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2021: 14.
[7] Toby J. Sumpter, No Mere Mortals: Marriage for People Who Will Live Forever, Moscow, ID: Canon Press: 2020: 44-45.
[8] Ibid: 49-53.
[9] Zachary M. Garris, Masculine Christianity, Ann Arbor, MI: Reformation Zion Publishing: 2021: 56-57.
[10] Ibid: 57
[11] Ibid: 57-58
[12] Ibid: 56.
[13] Elyse M. Fitzpatrick and Eric Schumacher, Jesus & Gender: Living as Sisters & Brothers in Christ, Bellingham, WA: Kirkdale Press: An Imprint of Lexham Press, 2022: 26–27.
[14] Donald K. McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press: 2014: 231.
