In this series:
I’ve been thinking about writing a series of posts about why I came to reject the complementarian position on women in the church and embrace what aligns more closely with the egalitarian view.
This post will just be an introduction and I’ll see where I go from here.
A brief summary
If you’re unfamiliar with these terms (complementarian vs. egalitarian) in the context of church spaces, here’s a brief summary:
Complementarians
Complementarians believe that men and women are equal in value but different in role. This view maintains that men are called to lead in private and in public. Men are called to use their natural strength (generally speaking, larger and stronger bodies) to be protectors and risk takers. They are to take on the burden of decision making for the sake of those they lead and care for. In marital structures, husbands are to love their wives sacrificially as Jesus gave his life for the church (Ephesians 5). This posture is often described and honored as “servant leadership.” Women are called to loving submission (Ephesians 5). Submission is described as a gift that women willingly give to men who practice Christ-like leadership. They are not to lead men because it would go against God’s design ordinance (1 Timothy 2). In marital structures they are to support their husbands in their endeavors. Just as men are called to lean into their roles as protectors and decision makers, women are called to be nurturers and supporters. A similar appeal is often made to God’s design through their physical biology to say that their natural place is in domestic spaces. They are to cultivate life and beauty so that the spaces they inhabit may flourish. Complementarians see these structures to be models of order and desire that the church live into this order so that the world could see God’s design for human flourishing.
Egalitarians
Egalitarians believe that men and women are equal and that there are no gender specific roles or prescriptions for those who are in Christ. Egalitarians view the structures of power and hierarchy with regard to gender as part of the curse of sin (Genesis 3) and often appeal to Galatians 3 to show that Christ has set us free from these structures and we are no longer bound by them. In both ecclesial and marital structures, egalitarians exhort all to mutual submission and partnership in decision making. There’s an acknowledgement that the gifts of God — whether to lead, support, or anything in between — are not gender specific. All, regardless of gender, are encouraged to explore their giftings and affinities to build up the church and love those around them. Thus, in a similar way that complementarians see adherence to prescribed gender roles as a way to show the world the manifold wisdom of God, egalitarians see freedom from these same roles to show the same (Ephesians 3).
Who is this for?
In writing out the brief summaries above, I realized two things: (1) I can give more details regarding the complementarian position because of my theological background. (2) Much of the egalitarian position is set in contrast to the complementarian position; I want to describe egalitarianism in positive terms but often end up in the negative: describing what it’s not. Thus I am, in effect, centering the complementarian position and speaking in relation to it.
For those who are egalitarian, you likely won’t feel the need to read any of this. You may already be convinced of the egalitarian position apart from a scriptural study, and that is fine. There are many aspects of our day-to-day living that do not result from rigorous scriptural inquiry. We do not need a “theology of hygiene” to brush our teeth, take showers, and wash our hands; we do it because we know it is part of honoring God and others (this is a silly example but I hope you get the idea). I suspect many who are already egalitarian do so out of an inner sense of righteousness and justice in loving others. If I wanted to give theological language to this, I’d say that the Holy Spirit has already guided you to live this way and you don’t need to answer why. There was a time when enslaving others was our culture’s centered interpretation of scripture and thus people felt the need to show a different reading of the text. So just as the Spirit has guided us to not enslave your fellow human being, I believe the Spirit has guided us to see women differently.
But for those who have occupied the space in between, or are straddling both sides, or don’t know where you are but, like me, come from a background that wants a scriptural foundation, I’d like to share with you my journey.
I should also note that everything (and I mean everything) I’m sharing in these posts did not originate with me. In many ways I am very late in these inquiries and have actually participated in hindering these inquiries in others. Of the many sources and commentaries I’ve read, I find myself often pointing to two: Philip B. Payne’s Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters and the layperson conversationally accessible The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth by Beth Allison Barr. I write these posts because my experience is that, while most will not read these (far superior) resources, they might read my humble reflections.
Some foundations
When I was in complementarian spaces, the common critique of the egalitarian position was that they “didn’t take the bible seriously” or that they read the bible to “suit their own desires.” I don’t doubt that there may be some who arrived at the position apart from dissecting scripture (as I mentioned earlier, you don’t need a theological apologetic to live a certain way), but I learned that this was (and is) not a fair assessment. Such an assessment is merely a straw man that we erect to avoid dealing with the intricacies of scripture. At the end of all these posts, even if you may not agree with my conclusions, I hope you understand why we disagree.
Context matters
In my own story, I have come to my position not by avoiding the text, but by getting deeper into the world of scripture. How we read scripture matters in interpretation and understanding. Reading the bible is a trans-cultural and trans-temporal exercise. Before we can confidently apply a passage to the present day, we must seek to understand the context. This would include the author (both intent and identity, as far as we can deduce), the audience (their beliefs and understanding of the world), and the general culture (what else was going on around them? how would the text read in comparison/contrast to the culture and accepted norms around them?). Within that framework we can look at the text itself and ask, What is the genre? If it’s a narrative, what happens before and after? If it’s a letter, what can we suppose regarding the occasion for the letter?
Always reforming
We have to understand the limits of our knowledge about a time and culture long past. Yet at the same time, as we gain insight into the world of scripture, we ought to have the humility to revise our understanding of a text. Sometimes we confuse theological stubbornness with faithfulness; they are not the same. One of the banners of the reformation movement was semper reformanda, always reforming. It is not wrong to “repent” of a less informed understanding of a text and turn towards the truth. This is the pattern and rhythm of the Christian life.
In addition to the contextual dynamics, there is also the practical. Jesus taught his followers that we will know a tree by its fruit. When we see bad fruit, we should, at the very least, pause to consider with humility where we may have gotten things wrong. We go back to the texts and speak to the image bearers who have been affected for perspective and insight that we may, again, repent and turn to what is good that we may bear good fruit.