This question crops up from time to time on my social media feed. It’s there at the moment I presume because the Southern Baptist Convention is meeting and in the light of developments at Saddleback Church where it’s former pastor, Rick Warren has now reversed his position and apologised to women, the topic is a live one once again.
One argument I consistently here is that “complementarianism” is a recent innovation. It is purely an attempt to fight back against feminism and justify patriarchal models. I don’t think that this is fair on two counts. First, because I don’t believe that complementarianism, strictly understood is about male-female hierarchy. The emphasis should be on men and women, particularly husbands and wives, complementing each other. It is truer then to see complementarianism as an attempt to understand the Biblical texts that talk about headship and submission in a way that doesn’t contradict what Genesis 1:26-28 says about men and women being made in God’s image, equally or what 1 Peter 3 says about men and women being co-heirs in Christ. Complementarianism is based on the understanding that men and women are created equal but that in terms of marriage and church take distinctive roles.
Second, because I believe that the roots of the approach go back much further than the advent of the Campaign for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in the 1980s. That may well have been when the term was coined but I would argue that the concepts behind the term date back much further.
As I observed in my MTh thesis “Marriage at Work”, John Calvin argued in his commentary on Ephesians that the requirement was not just on wives, children and slaves to submit to husbands, parents and masters but also for the husbands, parents and masters to submit to those seen as subordinate to them. In effect, Calvin argues for mutual submission which on the one hand is problematic for some complementarians such as Peter O’Brien who have argued that mutuality is not possible but also for egalitarians because it does demonstrate that at least 500 years ago, people were thinking about how headship and submission fitted with equality.
Having said that, 500 years ago is still quite recent in the grand scheme of things, perhaps complementarianism is still a novel innovation, if not that novel. Rachel Darnell argues on Twitter that:
So is that an accurate understanding of things? Certainly to take one of the prime examples, Augustine talked in terms of creation being divided between the ruling and subordinate parts and the evidence points to him readily accepting a hierarchical society with women taking subservient roles. Here he is attempting to explain why polygamy was at times permitted for women but not men.
Now, if to the God of our fathers, who is likewise our God, such a plurality of wives had not been displeasing for the purpose that lust might have a fuller range of indulgence; then, on such a supposition, the holy women also ought each to have rendered service to several husbands. But if any woman had so acted, what feeling but that of a disgraceful concupiscence could impel her to have more husbands, seeing that by such licence she could not have more children? That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages taking their beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a more honourable precedent. In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, – many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one. Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, “The head of the woman is the man;” and, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” So also the Apostle Peter writes: “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.” Now, although the fact of the matter is, that while nature loves singleness in her dominations, but we may see plurality existing more readily in the subordinate portion of our race; yet for all that, it was at no time lawful for one man to have a plurality of wives, except for the purpose of a greater number of children springing from him. Wherefore, if one woman cohabits with several men inasmuch as no increase of offspring accrues to her therefrom, but only a more frequent gratification of lust, she cannot possibly be a wife, but only a harlot.[1]
However, that is only one half of the equation. Here are his comments on Genesis 1:27
“Some people have suggested that it was now (Gen 1:27) that the human mind was made, while the human body came later, when scripture says, ‘And God fashioned man from the slime of the earth’ (Gen 2:7); so that where it says ‘he made’ (1:26), it refers to the spirit, while ‘he fashioned’ (2:7) refers to the body. But they fail to take into account that male and female could only be made with respect to the body. While indeed it may be acutely argued [as by himself, in On the Trinity, XII; EH] that the human mind, in which the human being is made to God’s image and which is a kind of rational life, has two functions: the contemplation of eternal truth and the management of temporal affairs; and that thus you get a kind of male and female, the one part directing, the other complying; it is still the case that the mind is only rightly called the image of God in that function by which it adheres in contemplation to the unchangeable truth. It is to symbolize or represent this point that the apostle Paul says that it is only the man who is the image and glory of God; ‘but the woman’, he says, ‘is the glory of the man’ (1 Cor 11:7).
“Thus while that which is to be observed in the one mind of the interior person is symbolized by two persons who are outwardly of different sex in the body; still the woman too, who is female in the body, she too is being renewed in the spirit of her mind, where there is neither male nor female, to the recognition of God according to the image of him who created her (Rom 12:2, Eph 4:23, Col 3:10, Gal 3:28). Women, after all, are not excluded from this grace of renewal and the refashioning of God’s image, although their bodily sex symbolizes something else, which is why only the man is called the image and glory of God. In the same way too, in the original creation of the human race, because the woman too was human, she obviously had a mind and a rational one at that, in respect of which she too was made to the image of God.”[2]
Now, that’s perhaps a little complex and we may still find ourselves disagreeing with his thinking as well as finding some of it offensive. However, the gist of things seems to be that Augustine distinguishes the physical body from the mind and soul, he sees a higher and a lower part of humanity. It is in regards to the physical body that he sees a difference between men and women and it is in that regards that he considers the female sex, subordinate. However, in terms of mind/soul, he doesn’t see a difference but rather a unity between male and female. In that respect, in the mind, male and female were created to reflect the image of God and in that respect, they both, equally have the possibility through salvation to see that image restored.
As I said, that’s not how contemporary complementarians would resolve the issue, just as it’s not how egalitarians would, though I would argue that Augustine, like Calvin has more in common with complementarianism than egalitarianism. The crucial point though is that Augustine recognised that Scripture both talked about wives submitting and men and women being created equal and being co-heirs of the Gospel. He recognises what has become known as the complementarian framing of the argument even if he differs on the detail (and remember there are differences over detail amongst modern complementarians too).
The historical record matters because it helps us to see how people have engaged Scripture throughout the ages. This demonstrates that complementarianism is not novel but sits within the tradition of Scriptural interpretation. Of course, the primary argument should not be about different views throughout history but what Scripture itself actually teaches.
[1] Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1.10.
[2] Augustine, Literal Commentary on Genesis, III.22.
Faithroots 