Why Does Complementarian Rhyme with Egalitarian?

Published on by D. G. Hart

A little while back Carl Trueman pushed back on the empasis by some gospel co-allies on complementarianism. Carl concluded this way:

This is not the only awkward question one might ask: for example, which is more unacceptable to a Baptist – a woman preaching credobaptism or a man preaching paedobaptism? But that is for another day. In the meantime, do not misunderstand me: I do write as a convinced complementarian and a member of a church where no elders or deacons are – or can be — women, though none of them are – or can be – Lutherans, Baptists or Dispensationalists either. It is thus not complementarianism in itself to which I object; I am simply not sure why it is such a big issue in organisations whose stated purpose is basic co-operation for the propagation of the gospel and where other matters of more historic, theological and ecclesiastical moment are routinely set aside. If you want simply to unite around the gospel, then why not simply unite around the gospel? Because as soon as you decide that issues such as baptism are not part of your centre-bounded set but complementarianism is, you will find yourself vulnerable to criticism — from both right and left — that you are allowing a little bit of the culture war or your own pet concerns and tastes to intrude into what you deem to be the most basic biblical priorities.

This seemed smart then and still seems so. My only quibble is with the word “complementarian” itself. Some say it is like the Trinity, a concept derived from Scripture but not actually used. Well, the same goes for “hierarchical” or “patriarchal.” Those are words that are much more likely to be derived from biblical teaching about society but are apparently offensive to gospel co-allies who don’t want to look odd to the watching world. The hierarchies assumed in Scripture, wives submit to husbands, slaves to masters, and believers to emperors, are hardly the social arrangements we take for granted in the United States after the democratic revolution inaugurated by Andrew Jackson. But they do resemble the ones that the Reformers, Puritans, and early Presbyterians took for granted. Just think of the language of “superiors, inferiors, and equals” from the Shorter Catechism’s discussion of the fifth commandment.

The logic of hierarchy and patriarchy is not something that I am going to defend, myself. The little missus and I have reached a level of concord that most observers would call an egalitarian arrangement. I have no stones to through from the windows of my glass house. I do have the shield of two-kingdom theology, though, which allows me to have my cake (egalitarianism of a kind at home) and eat it too (hierarchicalism and patriarchy of a kind in the church).

Still, I do think the Gospel Coalition’s rallying behind complementarianism is troubling. It resembles the version of Calvinism that traffics among the young and restless — lots of talk of divine sovereignty, not so much about limited atonement. After all, that biblical teaching and those Reformed creeds can sound reactionary to modern ears and we don’t ever want to sound extreme — as if believing in a God-man who died and rose again and will come again is moderate.

What is particularly troubling about the Complementarian w-w is what it seems to do to the church. For instance, in Mary Kassian’s “Complementarianism for Dummies,” she writes that complementarians don’t want to be traditional (which is surprisingly close to not wanting to be conservative):

In our name-the-concept meeting, someone mentioned the word “traditionalism,” since our position is what Christians have traditionally believed. But that was quickly nixed. The word “traditionalism” smacks of “tradition.” Complementarians believe that the Bible’s principles supersede tradition. They can be applied in every time and culture. June Cleaver is a traditional, American, TV stereotype. She is not the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like 60 or 70 years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.

Well, if the culture has changed, shouldn’t the church? And if the culture now puts women into roles of authority, why shouldn’t the church also do so? In fact, the Gospel Coalition recently asked two women to exegete and interpret Scripture for its general (including male) audience. I am personally a great affirmer of the idea that non-ordained women can do whatever non-ordained men can do. But for an organization with ecclesial ambitions, allowing women to teach the Bible seems to put TGC on the road to women’s ordination (which is where some think their star allies are walking).

To come back to Carl’s point, if complementarianism lacks the deal breaker significance of the gospel, so too does women’s ordination. At the same time, the lesson of communions like the Christian Reformed Church is that distinguishing peripheral matters from central ones is not so easy. The ordination of women was not the line in the sand for all conservatives in the CRC. But it was indicative of a general unease in the denomination regarding teachings and practices that had been part and parcel of the church’s Reformed identity but now looked burdensome after a move out of immigrant quarters into suburbia. It is one thing to be prophetic about the environment. It’s another altogether to be so about relations between men and women.

So while complementarianism is not as big a deal as the gospel, the way you treat complementarianism may be indicative of how big the deals you are willing to make.

P.S. I wonder if Keller and Piper really do agree on complementarlianism, especially when it applies to the church and to marriage. This video has a certain poignancy to it that makes me wonder if the folks at Redeemer Church would invite Piper to lead a seminar on women’s role in the church.

42 thoughts on “Why Does Complementarian Rhyme with Egalitarian?”

  1. Pingback: Why Complementarianism Can’t Be a “Gospel” Issue | Heidelblog

  3. I have read this twice and am still not quite able to discern your point on this one. Maybe someone else can give me their take and provide a helpful summary.

    I admit I am on edge receiving the opinion of one who is a big fan of “Julie and Julia” and who has defined himself as “light in the loafers” on this topic…

    Like

  4. The words are not in the Bible. Are there different kinds of “biblicist”? Are you the good kind?

    I had a short experience once in an “evangelical free church”. I could never get anybody there to talk about baptism, but they would “do it your way”. But when it came to the duty of wives to always amen their husbands, it was priority one, way more important than any differences about election or the atonement. My meek wife was even lectured once in the ladies’ room about the need for traditional marriage. (I think the tradition was something which happened in some places in the 1950s) by a lady who had never met my wife before.

    One of the best things about my wife, second only to her looks, is her willingness to give a cogent rebuttal to what I have just said.

    Like

  6. I told my wife what she should think today. She told me what she thought of what I told her she should think today. To quote Piper; “It’s like a ballet, when it’s done well…………….”

    Like

  7. For what it’s worth the lady in the picture is speaking at the Gospel Coalition Women’s Conference.

    Sean – In the end it’s all a moot point because if momma’s not happy, no one’s happy, regardless of how it’s supposed to work on paper.

    Like

  9. I asked my wife what I should think about this, and she said it was not something she cared about very much, so I could think whatever I wanted about it. I might also add I have utterly failed in trying to get her to wear pearls and heels every day.

    Like

  11. Which may mean that paedobaptism is to biblical teaching on the sacraments what the three marks are to parachurch organizations.

    Like

  12. The prevailing sociological issue, ISTM, is that Evangelicals are trying to distance themselves from their Ted Haggard persona and so you get someone like a Mark Driscoll who kicks it with MMA dudes. See how the tough evangels put their wives in their place?

    But the bigger question in my mind is the relationship between creational ordinances and the ethics Jesus summarized. Jesus harshly condemed money changers and Pharisees but quickly forgave whores. Consequently, not convinced this can all be wrapped up neatly in a 2k paradigm by the fact that most whores don’t go to church.

    Like

  14. The problem is not with ‘let’s all affirm ‘X’ ‘ but if there’s no sufficient agreement on what X is – it’s just a mood or tendency – then that ‘s not the way to form a Rainbow Coalition, but to Babel.

    Like

  16. D.G. – “Erik, the point is that complementarianism is to biblical teaching on gender roles what the New Calvinism is to the five points.”

    Erik – So you would say they are trying to oversimplify things? In particular they are maybe getting gender roles in the church correct, but overstepping when they try to say how gender roles should look outside of the church (in the home, in particular)?

    I could see them doing this. I don’t follow evangelicalism terribly closely, but it never surprises me when they get things wrong.

    I go to work and my wife stays home with our 5 year old. The three older ones are in 6th, 10th, & freshman year of college. I always tell her I’m game to trade places whenever she says the word. Unfortunately I have a lot more education & experience than her so we’re probably stuck. She’ll probably start to do something outside the home at some point, though.

    Like

  17. Maybe they are heading the way of Bill Gothard’s “Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts”?

    I know a family whose kids are all college age or older but they still won’t all go to Sunday School because we break up the families into age-segregated classes. I used to be kind of obnoxious in this way. My kids were all still young and I thought I had all the (Doug Wilson provided) answers.

    I think some pragmatism in family and gender relations can make some sense. Family and marriage can become a bit of an idol if we go to extremes.

    Like

  18. The word has its strengths which are often ignored altogether. Complementarian does not merely mean, as is generally assumed, that men and women are equal (in terms of value) but have different roles and responsibilities. It means that depending on one’s station (e.g., in marriage, in church, etc.) God has called that person to fulfill certain roles in specific ways which complete the way in which God calls us to satisfy those tasks, procuring Him glory. In marriage God has prescribed a way for men and women to fuifill their God-given roles in a unique way that gives God glory.

    Complementarianism has something that egalitarianism cannot offer: singularity. My wife pleases God and improves our marriage in ways that are inequal to me. Egalitarians, at best, can only say that women can do what men can do, in my opinion. This may be so! I’ve never doubted whether Joyce Meyer can speak to an audience on the Lord’s Day about a Bible passage and call it a sermon. In fact, she may be better than some ministers.

    What I cavil about is whether the Scripture directs her of how to perform whatever task she is doing in a unique way or whether the Scriptures direct ordained men, not simply men, to perform this task. Does God direct children about the importance of having submissive parents? Or, is it the other way around? That is, is it a unique role? Does God teach masters to be submissive to their slaves because of their equality? Or, do slaves have a unique way of honoring God, which is directed by the Scriptures?

    If the Scriptures do not speak to the unique way an adult male, adult female, male child or female child, perform a specific task in the station in which God has them, then I do not quibble with matters like a complementarian view. We are egalitarians when it comes to my wife’s ability to choose what movie we will see on Saturday, Lord willing.

    I submit one of the most helpful sections on complementarity in the WLC to you:
    Q. 127. What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors?
    A. The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.

    Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
    A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.

    Q. 129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
    A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.

    Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors?
    A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.

    Q. 131. What are the duties of equals?
    A. The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving honor to go one before another; and to rejoice in each others’ gifts and advancement, as their own.

    Q. 132. What are the sins of equals?
    A. The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement or prosperity one of another; and usurping preeminence one over another.

    Like

  19. “When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of the others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and then only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate the faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.”

    – Charles Porterfield Krauth, “The Conservative Reformation”

    Like

  21. DGH: “two-kingdom theology…which allows…egalitarianism of a kind at home…and patriarchy of a kind in the church.” (edited to de-personalize)

    How does 2k do that?

    Like

  24. Pingback: Why Does Complementarian Rhyme with Egalitarian?

  25. Alright now that I’ve forced myself to listen to two, count them two, “parlor room” discussions with Keller and Piper and Carson, somebody tell me who decided to substitute “harmful of human flourishing” for sin? I mean if Paul can argue that if Jesus be not raised from the dead we are of all men most to be pitied, and then cites favorably hedonism or even contentment with the pleasures of life amidst toil(ecclesiastes 2:24)(eat, drink and be merry……..) as a reasonable response to the course of this life if in fact the dead are not raised, what in the “H E double hockey sticks” is all this gibberish about ‘human-flourishing’ is found in denial of pleasures bit? Who are these more pious than the bible talking heads? Because Jesus died for me and is raised on my behalf I may be called off of those things, from time to time or more permanently, most given to my ‘human-flourishing’ like denying my family in favor of love to Christ or want or need of this or some other ‘legitimate’ human pleasure(eat or drink) but specifically NOT because it aids and abets my ‘human-flourishing’ but because God requires it of me and because he sees fit to use suffering(the very opposite of human-flourishing) to grow my faith and create character. These guys are leading the young restless and reformed and the PCA, for that matter? Yeesh.

    Like

  26. Sean, let me help you with “harmful of human flourishing”: listening to two Keller roundtables is not sin, but it is “harmful of human flourishing.”

    Like

  27. MM,

    I was hoping when they panned the audience I’d see at least a few facepalms, nada, nothing but mouth-breathing and drooling. Disturbing. This may require some whiskey and on a work night no less.

    Like

  28. Phew! Where are all the women on this blog? You men are cracking me up with all your complementarian versions. I have found the word to be helpful, but not a clean and easy doctrine (much like 2K). While Scripture is clear about submission, how this plays out in the home is diverse–that it part of the beauty of it.
    I think this is why Trueman’s article was so poignant. Something like the paedobaptism is much easier to teach and debate, and yet the board members hold to different stances on this topic.
    I will say that in Grudem and Piper’s book on the topic of complementarianism, they refer to the woman’s disposition in the relationship. I found that very helpful.

    Like

  29. Aimee, aren’t metrosexuals close enough to women? But I have found the word less helpful, since it reduces everything to sex, which may be why the culturalists are so taken with it. But when it comes to ecclesiastical office, the NT seems to have more to say about fit versus unfit MEN. Paul only excluded women once. And so maybe elitism (versus egalitarianism) is a better term since it includes questions of sex but is also more expansive to include men.

    Like

  30. Any woman who could persist on Old Life for an extended period of time without losing her cool or her nerve might make me question my views on women in office (ha, ha). She would need to be one tough cookie.

    Like

  31. I would think a pastor’s wife would need to be one tough cookie as well. That is another value of the word complementarianism, it shows the necessity of a good woman to “complete” man.
    Metrosexuals don’t count, Zrim 🙂 And is that your real name? I’m only asking because I have a daughter named Zaidee–“Z” names are fun. Anyway, you make a good point that not all men are fit to govern. That also raises the question of calling, which I really don’t understand from the women pastors. It also makes me think of how a woman is additionally picking a style of government when she picks a husband. Not all governmental heads are good, so we should really be educated on that early in life.

    Like

  33. Aimee, tell me something I don’t know: my wife says I don’t count all the time. I don’t find that very complimentary, though I’m told to man up and not whine about it. She picked the worm-boy style of government. But when it came to the female associate pastor we had in the CRC, one upside was that she always wore a Genevan gown when preaching, a Reformed propriety that escaped most of the fellows.

    PS, the name is real. It’s my mother’s nickname for my father (another worm-boy). We have a Sadie. My wife picked that one, because I was allowed to pick the other, which makes it a nice 80/20 in her favor.

    Like

  35. The Gospel Coalition is producing a larger and shorter catechism “in partnership with Tim Keller.” Ecclesiastical aspirations? Yes. Is TGC operating at the level of a General Assembly?

    The move to confessions and catechisms is a good thing (i’m not sure how such a thing would be possible or useful in that oversized tent context)…but this also seems to be another departure towards denominational status. How does this relate to the DGH’s post? Tim Keller.

    Like

  40. Gosh, and I have been going through the Westminster Shorter with my 5, 12, and 16 year old at night. If I had known the catechetical wheel was going to be reinvented I would (not) have waited…

    Like

  41. Since.the golden rule of. Christianity is to treat others as you wish to be treated, does.that mean that complimentarian men really want to be considered slaves in their marriages, and severely restricted.in their churches? If not, why would they treat women that way?

    Liked by 1 person

  42. chris: Since.the golden rule of. Christianity is to treat others as you wish to be treated, does.that mean that complimentarian men really want to be considered slaves in their marriages, and severely restricted.in their churches? If not, why would they treat women that way?

    RS: From what you have written you have misunderstood several things. One, the Golden Rule can never conflict with the biblical context of love for God and for the neighbor. Two, Christian men don’t consider their wives as slaves and hopefully treat them as God has commanded for men to treat them. So that would mean that men would treat their wives as they would want to be treated if God had reversed the roles. Three, God has set out the roles for men and women in the churches and so the roles of women in the churches are set out in line with what they should be if the men were created as woment. God is not obligated to allow liberal thinking to control how He has created things and the order He has set up.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.