A Brief Scriptural Reasoning for Complementarianism
Prior to defining terminology, it might aid in the clarity of those definitions to first describe what I don’t mean in each direction. When I speak of egalitarianism, I am not speaking of the common caricature depicted, of a group of blue haired progressives with a low view of Scripture, preying on weak men in order to usurp their authority. I am not speaking of those who have reframed their hermeneutic into a feminist liberation theology in order to force the text to say what makes them feel good. Conversely, when I am speaking of complementarianism, I am not speaking of some sort of trojan horse term for a position of misogyny as it is often accused. As defined by Beynon and Tooher, complementarianism is the belief that God made men and women equal and distinctive: equal in value and dignity, and distinctive in certain responsibilities and roles.[1] An important basis for this definition is the Imago Dei. The fact that men and women are both made in the image of God is what that equality, value, and dignity are grounded in.
Egalitarianism affirms also that men and women are made in the image of God, but diverges from the complementarian position afterwards due to the belief that because men and women are made in the same divine image, our “sameness” is triumphant in any discussion of role or responsibility. So, gender-based differences become arbitrary, and instead the way in which the church body complements one another is based on giftedness in the spirit of 1 Cor. 12:12-27. I am going to give a very brief biblical reasoning for the complementarian position by first offering its Scriptural foundation, other key biblical supporting texts, and common objections.
The Scriptural foundation for complementarianism comes as a response to that place in which the egalitarian departed. Yes, in Gen. 1:27 both genders are expressed as made in the image of God. However, in Gen. 2 God aims to give Adam a suitable helper, and then creates Eve. What makes Eve a suitable helper is precisely that similarity and togetherness (“sameness” mentioned prior) of having been made in the imago Dei. But she would be no help to him if she was the same as him. In that oft quoted text of egalitarians, 1 Cor. 12, a second nose is no help compared to having a nose and an eye. She is suitable because she is the same. She’s a help to him though because she’s not. Instead, her differences are fearfully and wonderfully created by God as a complement to the way in which he created man. Once more, there is no trojan horse of misogyny present. To refer to the woman as a helper for man is not to say she is lesser. This is a title given to the Holy Spirit, though of course in a higher sense. To be a helper for another, is not to be less than them. In similar stride, to submit to the headship of a husband is also not a statement of value, but of distinction in role.
Here lies the transition to the other key biblical texts. 1 Cor 11:3-16 and Eph. 5:22-33 express clearly that the head of the marriage is the husband. What is depicted though is not a tyrannical head but instead a loving head. So, where the wife submits to the husband’s headship and leadership, he submits himself to her in the sense of always being a loving head by the way he leads and serves her. He is to do so as Christ loves the church, sacrificially and faithfully.
In regards to the distinction of roles and responsibilities, it is not always communicated clearly what those are. Men have the responsibility to Shepherd their homes spiritually, and in an ecclesiological context, if they desire the office of an overseer to accept that calling. For women, although I do think there is an ecclesiological restriction as to what roles they may assume, which my position is nuanced on, generally I affirm the sentiments of Strachan and Peacock when they show the Pauline description of a woman’s role and responsibility to be more so a matter of having an inward reverent disposition.[2]
The common objections to these things might be that this viewpoint isn’t truly one of equality, but rather only nominally so, because if there is a position of submission, that is by definition a sort of hierarchy that puts women at the bottom of the totem pole. But I would just ask, by whose definition is it that submission means lesser value? And who is to say that a God ordained hierarchy in role assignment means inwardly that someone is of less value or stature before God? There is a massive leap being taken there and the person who makes it isn’t making it across by any coherent logic I can figure. Another argument might be that the words of Paul are to be taken as ad hoc rather than transculturally. This is surely the case at times, and exegetical work requires that investigation of us. However, there are not sustainable arguments that I have found to considering the texts in either Eph. 5 or 1 Cor. 11 aforementioned in an ad hoc manner. And regardless there is the precedent set in Genesis that sets into motion all that follows in terms of the biblical foundation for complementarianism that one’s eisegetical gymnastics would have to deal with to refute my position.
CITATIONS
[1] Graham Beynon and Jane Tooher, Embracing Complementarianism: Turning Biblical Convictions into Positive Church Culture (UK: The Good Book Co, 2022), 9.
[2] Owen Strachan and Gavin Peacock, The Grand Design: Male and Female He Made Them (Scotland, GB: Christian Focus Publications, 2016), 75.
