In light of our recent decision to withdraw from the CMA, I thought it would be helpful to produce a series of short articles that define our stance on complementarianism, or the biblical roles of men and women that are different yet complementary to one another.
To begin the series, I would like to start with a succinct definition of this term and be very transparent concerning what it is and is not. I aim to provide a biblical definition and clear biblical references confirming God’s complementary design of men and women. In doing so, I am not using current cultural definitions of terms such as male headship, submission, and other terms that bring a host of modern-day baggage, but rather, allow the Bible to determine the meaning of such terms.
Complementarian Definition
First, let’s ensure we are on the same page about what this term means. Our working definition of complementarianism is the biblical view that men and women are both created in the image of God and are, therefore, equal in value, dignity, and worth (Gen. 1:26-27). Both are equally distant from the cross but are equally adopted as sons and daughters with all the same benefits of sonship (Gal. 3:26-29). Though men and women are equal in these ways, God has given them different, distinct, and complementary roles that reflect His design and glory and lead to the best conditions for human flourishing in marriage and church.
What it is not
If we are not careful, we can drag a host of issues into this conversation. Gender, social, and racial justice are hotly debated in our time, and the conversation will draw a myriad of presuppositions on stances and definitions. As the church of Jesus Christ, we need to avoid unbiblical, modern-day stereotypes, caricatures, and assumptions. So, to avoid all of this negativity and unfruitful cultural baggage, I want to highlight what this discussion is not about.
This is not a women’s issue. The very term speaks to God’s intended roles for both women and men, and I would argue that it affects both equally as well as the children in the household and the membership of the church. We must not frame this entire discussion as “women are not allowed to do XYZ.” That starts from a negative position, and as the definition expresses, this is an exploration of God-given roles that are good, holy, and mutually beneficial for men and women.
This is not about competency. If it is true that God has given specific roles to men and women, then it cannot be about competency levels, as if men are competent to lead and teach and women are not. We need to distinguish between an ability and a role. I fully admit that my wife is much better at teaching than I am. That is a gift and passion that God has given her, and she excels at it. Plenty of women are capable and gifted communicators, leaders, and administrators. Giftedness and competency are not in question; rather, there are divinely given roles in specific spheres of living.
This is not a question of equality. Men and women are equal in value, worth, dignity, and sonship (using the terminology from Galatians). We all bear the image of God and have equal standing as sons and daughters. Differing roles does not mean that one is better than the other. To assume inequality in roles would directly oppose Paul’s metaphor of every individual believer being an indispensable member of the body of Christ, even the ones that do not seem as important as the others (1 Cor. 12:12-27). Function does not dictate importance.
This is not about deficiency. Many argue that complementarians connect Eve’s ‘gullibility’ (their words used to describe how she was deceived) to an inherent deficiency, which then extends to all women. The argument is that since Eve was deceived, then women in general are more inclined to be deceived or ‘gullible’; therefore, men should lead. I would reject such a view or the claim that this is what complementarianism teaches. To call Eve gullible because she is a woman is a gross misrepresentation of what happened at the fall, and to say that women are deficient or inferior to men by way of a deficiency in their nature is unbiblical (and terrible). God created man and women as the pinnacle of His creation and declared it all ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31).
This is not a posture of “anything you can do, I can do better.” In terms of competitiveness, one of the things my wife and I try to instill in our children is to only compete against themselves. If you compare yourself to someone else, you are playing a losing game because there will always be someone better than you. Looking at God-given roles like leadership, sacrificial love, submission, being a helper, etc… is not a matter of posturing and comparing one’s ability to the other. This speaks again to competency but goes even further in making it a competition, where there is a winner and a loser… someone who is better than the other… and where our identities are defined by ability rather than our being in Christ.
Why it is a primary issue
I hope that helps us avoid unnecessary discussions that do not strike at the heart of the issue. God’s defined roles and purposes for men and women are at the center of this debate. The real question is: did God define and intend these gender-specific roles from the beginning for a purpose?
Let’s let that question drive the conversation. I pray that you will see how central this discussion is to your daily life because if it is true that God has established roles for men and women in marriage and the church’s function, then this matter touches nearly every aspect of your life. In marriage, it influences how your household is run, how the husband and wife relate to one another, and how your children are raised. In the church, it impacts how leadership is structured and how doctrine is taught. Do you see the importance of getting it right? Those two spheres of living are the majority of your everyday life!
That is why I would call this a primary issue… but let me explain what I mean by that. If we define a ‘primary’ issue solely in terms of Christian doctrine that affects salvation, then this is not a primary issue. That is why we should never cast our or call one a heretic who believes differently than we do in this matter. There are faithful brothers and sisters who hold both views.
That said, if you define ‘primary’ as something that affects your daily life and the function of the Church, it is a primary issue. Again, this has a massive effect on the family and church structures, so we must take this seriously and strive to discover what God has designed and communicated to us.
In light of the seriousness of the matter, let’s begin this discussion in agreement that we are at our best and glorify God the most when we operate in the ways He has designed us. And, if we do not live by God’s design, it brings heartache to families and confusion into the church. Then, let us humbly examine the scriptures and pray that God will help us understand His will. Amen?
The remaining four articles will follow this train of thought:
Part 1 – Grounding complementarianism in the Created Order of Genesis 1-2.
Part 2 – Seeing complementarianism in the function of the home.
Part 3 – Seeing complementarianism in the function of the Church.
Part 4 – How we live this out at Ashe Alliance Church.