Against Complementarianism

The conversation about complementarianism, egalitarianism, and women in the church has been revived lately, in no small part due to historical and sociological reflection. As a debate, I think, there are at least 3 dimensions to consider--all overlapping. There is the recently highlighted historical/sociological one about what the tradition, in fact, is, and how different views have actually played out in Church history. There is--the conclusive and most important one--the biblical interpretive dimension about what the Bible actually says. There is also what we might call the systematic theological or the philosophical dimension of how all our views hang together around our views of women in the church.

On the conclusive matter of Biblical Interpretation I will refer you to William Witt’s Icons of Christ. I will also note that these other two dimensions help us to read well and correctly, and help to highlight red flags and enable us to ask better questions. On history, I will refer you to Dr.s du Mez and Barr. On philosophy and systematic theology, however, I think I have ground to speak for myself about what we need to consider.

First, let me offer a compact philosophical argument against complementarianism.
1. All true imperatives rest on indicatives which ground them.

Thus 2. The imperatives which constitute complementarianism are grounded in some truths which can ground them.

3. The only “truths” on offer to ground the imperatives of complementarianism are demeaning, oppressive, or otherwise harmful to women.

4. Truth is not demeaning, oppressive, or otherwise harmful to women.
Thus, 5. There are no actual truths to ground the imperatives which constitute complementarianism.
Thus, 6. Complementarianism is false.

The only premise I can see debate over is 3, so the challenge is for a complementarian to show that 3 is false. Note that it does you no good to say that there is some unknown, perhaps even unknowable, truth which does the grounding, since part of the charge here is that, since these are the groundings on offer, they are the only claims which a woman might take herself to be acting in accordance with, and so they are the ones which will shape her self conception (and men’s conceptions of women) when following complementarian norms.

 

Notice here that the Bible gives the Gospel as a fact which results in our sanctification. Being precedes doing in the economy of holiness. It is legalism to get these topsy-turvy, as if we could act our way into God's favor. So, to ignore the argument above and speak as if 3's truth doesn't matter or as if our ignorance of a solution here doesn't matter drives complementarianism to legalism. It is, in fact, the contention of the above argument that complementarianism is so contrary to the Gospel as to be intrinsically legalistic.

Second, a question: when we articulate what the Bible says about women in church, how are we defining our terms? In particular, it is often confusing for women to be told that they cannot preach, but they can teach Sunday School, read the Bible and pray from the pulpit, lead worship, write commentaries, and so on. What tips it over into preaching? Are you precise about what you are claiming? Consider, “men and women are to submit to one another, but women are called to submit in a particular way, and men to lead in a particular way.” Very well, what way? “Well, not like an authoritarian...” Indeed! But if I may refer you to Plato’s dialogues, Socrates is constantly saying things like “Well, yes, you have told me a great deal about what virtue is like or about what it is not, but we want to know what virtue, in itself, is.” and here I would say, likewise, you say a great deal about what your brand of complementarianism is not, and about what it is mean to evoke, but I haven’t the foggiest notion of what it would mean for my wife and I to actually live as complementarians of your sort except that my wife could not then aspire to preach.

A couple of notes on how we define things. By leaving things vague, we invite the world or our hearers’ baggage to fill in the gaps. Second, if you define preaching in such a way that the deciding factor is the handling of the Word of God (authoritative teaching from the Word of God, for instance), you must say why that is the deciding factor. You will then be faced with saying how it does not make the Word of God into the word of males. It would be quite odd to say that women can do anything but preach authoritatively from the authoritative Word of God. After all, if the very Word of God cannot support a woman's authoritative speech, what can? And if it cannot support a woman's authoritative speech, what on earth enables it to support a man's?

Third, in all this debate it is easy to lose sight of the fact that complementarianism is based on a select few verses of Scripture. It is not, then, well supported from many unambiguous texts. It is, in my mind, supported exclusively from texts which are at best ambiguous. Now, if we believe that the Word of God is sufficient for faith and practice, we should find it suspicious if a doctrine so blatantly central to the daily life of the Church is so poorly supported.

Fourth, from an egalitarian perspective this is only barely--if it is--a secondary issue, for it concerns whether we are barring women from following the calling of the Lord into ordained preaching ministry. It pertains to whether we are teaching our wives and sisters and daughters to suppress the fullness of their God-given gifts rather than use them in service to the Church. And this is not simply in regard to those few called to ordained preaching ministry. It also pertains to those whose gifts we might benefit from but who feel guilty teaching the Word, or interpreting Scripture, because of what they have absorbed from complementarian teaching. From a Johanine perspective, it is a massive red flag when a doctrine is used easily and regularly to shield us from guilt and protect our fleshly desires. The lens of recent history should have our theological sirens blaring in our churches on the issue of complementarianism.

Finally, a note of urgency: if this is rot, it is killing us if we are not killing it. If it is not rot, then it has nevertheless become a safe space for rot which, if we are not killing it, is killing us. 

Thus ends what I take to be my peculiarly philosophical contribution. The last thing I will say, then, is this: have you ever heard excellent preaching from a woman? If not, then is that because it does not exist or because you have hidden yourself from it? If you have heard such preaching, however, then why, given the ambiguity of Scripture, have you not said something like “If God has gifted them to preach, who are we to stand in the way, let them be ordained,” just as the early Church, on seeing gentiles with the Spirit, acceded to the clear will of God?