Complementarianism Archives

Partners in Christ, John G. Stackhouse, Jr. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015.

Summary: A case by a convert to egalitarianism for why both complementarians and egalitarians find scriptural foundations for their views with a proposal for what can make the best sense of the diverse testimony of scripture.

There may be some of you who read this review who may wonder, “what’s the big deal–of course women should be able to do anything men do in the home and the church–and perhaps more because they are also able to bear and nurse children.” But in certain circles within evangelicalism, this is a live issue and subject of both popular and theological writing. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., who once held a “complementarian” position (one that recognizes role distinctions between men and women in marriage and limits the roles women may exercise in leading and teaching in the church), describes his own movement to an “egalitarian” position (that there are no fixed role distinctions for men and women in marriage, nor limits as to the role of women in leadership and teaching in the church) and the theological method that led to his conclusions, amid the diverse biblical texts and conflicting interpretations:

“We should not wait to come to a theological conclusion for the happy day in which we have perfectly arranged all of the relevant texts. Instead, we should look at all of the texts as open-mindedly as possible, and see whether among the various competing interpretations there is one that makes the most sense of the most texts and especially the most important ones. We should look, in basic epistemological terms, for the preponderance of warrants or grounds to believe p instead of q. If no such preponderance is evident, of course, then we should suspend making a decision. But if we do conclude that a preponderance is discernible, then we should acknowledge it–indeed be grateful for it–and proceed to act on that basis” (p. 31).

Stackhouse recognizes a preponderance in what would be considered “control texts” for an egalitarian view–from Genesis 1 to Galatians 3:28. He would understand the rise of gender role distinctions and patriarchy as a consequence, not of creation, but the Fall of humanity. Yet he also recognizes a certain “doubleness” in scriptures, sometimes within the same passage (as in Ephesians 5:21-33, where verse 21 commends mutual submission, and then the following verses commend distinctive role behaviors for husbands and wives) that serves as foundation for the concerns of complementarians. Is there a way to understand this “doubleness” that does not involve scripture contradicting scripture and that addresses the concerns of both egalitarians and complementarians for biblical integrity? Stackhouse thinks there is.

He finds this in the recognition of the church’s missional priorities of proclaiming the gospel within Roman culture, and their expectation of the imminent return of the Lord. This is a culture with clearly defined role distinctions for men and women along patriarchal lines, as well as for masters and slaves. Stackhouse writes,

“So it would make sense—given gospel priorities, holy pragmatism and eschatological expectations — for the apostles to teach a policy of cultural conservatism (“Get along as best you can with the political powers and social structures that be”) in the interest of accomplishing the one crucial task: spreading the gospel as far and as fast as possible. And they do” (p, 56).

He would contend that, while we find in Paul and others the seeds of egalitarian relationships in marriage, and roles for women in teaching and leading, even in his own missionary teams, the presence of scriptures that recognize role distinctions reflect a kind of holy pragmatism that realizes that the advance of the gotspel is of higher priority than leading a revolution in gender roles, or upending slavery. However this also brings him to the conclusion that in a society that upholds egalitarianism, the opportunity is to practice the full liberty found in germ form in the testimony of scripture. Perpetuating gender role distinctions now may hinder the gospel, even as promoting egalitarianism would have New Testament times.

Stackhouse deals thoughtfully with counterarguments that may be posed from theology, church history, and contemporary experience and practice. He addresses fears about inclusive language in translations, and boundaries in terms of language used of God. One of his most thoughtful chapters is on why women do not lead. He concludes with a plea for women to continue to speak into his life about his “enduring sexism” while still assuming personal responsibility for it.

I suspect Stackhouse’s book satisfies neither committed egalitarians nor complementarians. Egalitarians may feel the book opens the door to those who would advocate patient waiting, even in our present day. Complementarians may still be unconvinced that gender role distinctions are a consequence of the fall. The book is silent on implications for parallel discussions within Catholic and Orthodox circles. Yet for others, who consider the impasse between the two sides in this evangelical discussion a scandal, Stackhouse’s irenic and biblically grounded approach offers at least a meeting ground for those no longer interested in battling over gender roles. His tone of humility, both in matters of interpretation, and in coming to terms with the implications of his understanding of scripture for how he partners with women in ministry, is an example other men may wish to heed.

There may be some who wish to argue with the author in comments on this review. First of all, please realize that this is my summary of the author’s argument, which I hope is an adequate reflection in much abbreviated form. Second, if you really care about this, I urge you to read his book and engage with him directly. Above all, I hope that wherever we come down in this discussion, we will practice the humility and openness to change modeled by this author.

Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian, Michelle Lee-Barnewall. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.

Summary: Argues on the basis of the biblical texts for a reframing of the discussion of the relationship of men and women from one of power versus equality to one that focuses on the elements in the biblical texts around reversal, inclusion, unity and service.

In the mouthful that is the title to this book lies a heated, sometimes hurtful, occasionally constructive intramural discussion in the evangelical community about how men and women relate to each other in the church and in marriage. Complementarians argue for gender distinctives that are complementary, for some form of male headship, female submission in marriage and that certain roles of leadership in the church are open only to men. Egalitarians argue that the best way to understand the biblical texts is that in creation and redemption, men and women are equal at the foot of the cross, that all roles of leadership are open to both in the church and that husband and wife mutually submit to each other as equals. Both “sides” contend that they are being faithful to the teaching of scripture.

I’ve watched this debate go on through my adult life, although rarely have scholars on one side or the other of this discussion reached out to see if there is some way the two positions can be reconciled. Over time, some have moved to a “soft” complementarian position, while egalitarians have been open to explore distinctives of gender while avoiding any form of hierarchy in marriage or church. What has troubled me is that the discussion has often been framed around authority or rights and hasn’t explored questions of servanthood, inclusion, and the kind of mutual care that ought characterize communities shaped by the crucified and risen Christ.

Michelle Lee-Barnewall has been troubled by this as well and thinks that part of the reason for the impasse to which we’ve come is that the discussion has been framed around categories of roles, authority, and rights that may draw more from contemporary culture that the biblical narratives and that there may be a perspective inherent in the narratives that is missed because of the framing questions we ask.

The first part of the book reviews the evangelical history of women. She breaks this into three periods, the first of which is around the turn of the 20th century when women were significantly involved in many social and mission causes, the focus being on doing one’s duty where needful. The second was a period of retreat, after the turbulence and separation of World War II, emphasizing the role of women in the home and in child-rearing. This transition, in the post-civil rights and feminist era to a focus on equal rights for women, with others holding to a more traditional role, that in contemporary discussion has been framed as complementarian.

The second part of the book turns to biblical theology and the biblical text to develop themes that might reframe the discussion. First she considers the idea of the kingdom of God and the emphases on unity and corporate identity, and on the great reversals of power, including the exaltation of the lowly and the humbling of the exalted. She then goes on under the theme of unity to explore the idea of inclusion and whether this is a better way to understand the place of women than either complementary roles or equal rights, that women are welcomed in Jesus circle and shared in and were included in the blessing of Pentecost. She also explores the radical teaching about leadership as servanthood, or even slavery, which radically upturns for both men and women, the hierarchies of the New Testament period.

In the latter part of this section, she considers two passages, Genesis 2-3, and Ephesians 5:21-33. In Genesis 2-3 she notes particularly the one flesh instructions to Adam and how in his disobedience, this is broken as he blames Eve, even though it is to Adam that God first addresses himself. She does note how the relationship originates in Adam, through whom Eve is given life and named, and yet the focus, she contends is not his authority or precedence but his leaving, cleaving, becoming one flesh with her. In Ephesians, while the man is indeed “head” (and the meaning of this can be debated) there is no command to exercise authority but rather to love and give oneself, with the husband and wife relationship demonstrating the union between Christ and church.

Lee-Barnewell does not take a “side” in this discussion, even in conclusion. She advocates instead for a different kind of discussion. She suggests that the rhetoric used to characterize the “other” as “feminist” or “patriarchal” is not helpful. Rather than answer the question of what women can or cannot do, she believes these other biblical themes are crucially important as foundations for any constructive discussion, and for reaching a place informed more by scripture than culture for all concerned.

My fear with a book like this is that it will either be disregarded or attacked by advocates on either side of this discussion, and especially by complementarians. I do think the upshot of her “reframing” would be to support the position of egalitarians, albeit with a different spirit. Yet I think this is an important book, as are similar books around questions of origins and the Genesis text, in reframing the discussion by changing the kinds of questions we ask of the biblical text, indeed in trying to listen to the text and let it deliver us from our own cultural captivities. That might even have the effect of bringing us together in the inclusive, unifying ways Lee-Barnewell envisions.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.