Scriptorium Daily
Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism is often a hot-button issue amongst evangelical Christians. To define these briefly, Complementarianism is the theological position that men and women are created differently and correspondingly should have different roles—i.e. men and women are not inherently unequal, but their differences should lead to different roles which complement each other. Egalitarianism is the position that men and women are equal and thus can have interchangeable roles.
Here’s a disclaimer: Even though I am a theologian, I am not attempting to write a Biblical or theological perspective on this issue here. This blog is more of a sociological or cultural take. In a future feature post, I will be looking at this issue Biblically and theologically.
This issue is a sticky one because there are good evangelical Christians on both sides of this debate. And unfortunately, a lot of mud-slinging goes back and forth: the Complementarians say that Egalitarians are on the slippery slope to supporting homosexuality (because if you say that the sexes are the same, then logically why can’t you marry anyone you want?), and the Egalitarians call the Complementarians male chauvinists (because Complementarianism is just a convenient way of using the Bible to justify women staying home to cook, clean, and take care of the kids). Yes, I’ve actually heard people say these things! Where is the grace? In my perspective, this is not a heresy issue, so the nastiness is unwarranted.
I struggled with this issue a lot in seminary. I went in wanting to resolve certain issues in my mind: What denomination do I want to be a part of? What about Calvinism vs. Arminianism? Premillennialism or Amillennialism or Postmillennialism? Infant baptism or believers’ baptism? Complementarianism or Egalitarianism? By the time I graduated from seminary, I had come to pretty solid stances (based on what I deemed good Biblical and theological support) on where I fell regarding each of these issues except for the last. It was, in my opinion, one of the most difficult, and I still find it difficult. So this blog is not a way to resolve the issues, but to lay out some of the considerations which perhaps will help us to clarify our positions.
In order to hone in more on the important factors, let’s take Biola University as a case study. First, let me stress that there is nothing in the Biola doctrinal statement that says anything on this Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism debate. Secondly, Biola traditionally has a culture of Complementarianism though there are certainly Egalitarian people on campus. Thirdly, there are gradations of each position which are not often highlighted; people falsely think that it is a black-and-white issue. Fourthly, it is not only men who are Complementarian; there are women who hold that position too. Hopefully these considerations make this a safe forum in which to discuss this issue without vicious attack from any quarter, or without fear of crossing any inappropriate lines.
Last year there was a “Gender Climate Study” done at Biola. It was an excellent, detailed study, and there is no way I can recount everything in it right now. What I found most interesting was this: when Biola faculty were polled as to how they viewed this gender issue, the following was the result.
| Position: | Percentage of faculty who support this: |
|---|---|
| Egalitarianism in home, church, and society and we need to actively promote this position. | 6% |
| Egalitarianism in home, church, and society. | 27.6% |
| Egalitarianism in church but Complementarianism in the home. (Exception to church: women are allowed to serve in every capacity except elder) | 57.5% |
| Complementarianism in home and church. | 7.5% |
| Complementarianism in home, church, and society. | 1.5% |
Surprising, isn’t it? In terms of the stereotype of Complementarians who don’t allow women to teach/speak at all (or women can only teach/speak with reference to children or other women), this study does not bear out that Biola conforms to that. Only those in the bottom two categories, totaling 9% of the overall Biola faculty, conform to that stereotype. The vast majority hold a median view, or what I might term a very “soft” Complementarianism which even allows for women to do a majority of ministry activities in the church with the exception of holding the office of elder. Not only that, if you consider the third category as a “bipartisan” vote (partly Complementarian and partly Egalitarian), then the Egalitarians handily win in terms of percentage on the Biola campus, 62.35% to 37.65%!
I’m going to lay my cards out on the table: I’m an Egalitarian, though it is not a hill I’m willing to die on. That being said, I think everyone should have an educated opinion when it comes to even the nonessential issues of the faith, and as such, here is my cultural/sociological defense of Egalitarianism (remember, I will offer my Biblical/theological defense in a future blog):
- People often say that this debate is about “women in ministry.” That is a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one! No one, not even the staunchest Complementarian, would say that women should not do ministry. Every Christian must do ministry! The question is, what roles in ministry are women allowed to do? Can they teach? Can they preach? Can they be ordained?
- People exist in communities but they are also individuals. It’s one thing to generalize about a whole group (i.e. all women should do such-and-such) but people have different gifts, talents, personalities, and inclinations, and it is just as ridiculous to say “all women need to be homemakers” as it is to say “all men need to be athletes.” Not all men are built that way; and neither are all women built a certain way. Does it make a man less of one if he is not athletic? Does it make a woman less of one if she is not domestic?
- Competence needs to be a consideration as well. It is widely acknowledged that among Billy Graham’s children, his daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, is by far the best preacher. However, it is Franklin Graham who inherited his father’s ministry. I realize that ability is not the sole criteria for doing something, but does it not feel like a waste of Anne’s preaching ability if she does not exercise it? Why would God give her such a gift for “nothing”? (and she does exercise her preaching gift, so it actually is not wasted). Likewise for a professorship, should a man get a seminary professorship over a woman just because he is male, though she may be the far better teacher and researcher?
- Where the rubber meets the road: It’s one thing to remain in the realm of theory, but quite another when you put it into practice. I hardly know of anyone at Biola who would have a problem with sitting under the tutelage of a female professor (and professors teach, heaven forbid!). Even Talbot School of Theology, the most strongly Complementarian of the seven schools at Biola, has female professors. And we often have female preachers in Biola’s chapel and nobody seems to mind.
- Let’s call a spade a spade: in Complementarian churches, the pastor’s wife is essentially the female pastor in all but name. Even Complementarians cannot deny that women need women to minister to them. Male pastors cannot effectively take care of all the women’s needs, and most Christian schools and churches are over 50% women (Biola is no exception—2/3 of our student body is women)! With only male leadership and teaching, women are shortchanged if they don’t have someone ministering to them and speaking their language. Too often, women are doing all the work of a pastor but are not called such. It becomes semantic juggling, just to maintain a semblance of Complementarianism.
- Complementarians say that the greatest defense of their position is the Bible and quote verses such as 1 Cor. 14:35 and 1 Tim. 2:12 which say that women should be silent. However, they conveniently leave out verses about women praying and prophesying (1 Cor. 11:4-6) and serving as deaconesses (Rom. 16:1) which I would say involves speech. Let’s not proof-text here, but take the whole canon of Scripture! (ok, I promised I wouldn’t get theological on you… so this is merely whetting your appetite for the next blog).
These considerations I’ve just listed are merely scratching the surface. I know there is much more to be said. However, these are just some musings that I’ve had as I think about this issue using experience and human reason, while recognizing that the Biblical and theological arguments must also be explored. My hope is that this blog will highlight some of the complexities of the issue, showing that it’s not as clear-cut as people on both sides might think. I personally think there are some great arguments for the Complementarian side too, which is why I struggled so much trying to decide which side I fell on. Can the Christian church have unity amidst our diverse viewpoints? I certainly hope so!
