When we think about questions relating to the relationship between husbands and wives in the home and the role of men and women in the church, we tend to think of the debate being primarily between complementarians and egalitarians with a binary choice. I want to suggest that there are good reasons for not seeing the conversation in those terms. First of all, I suspect that some complementarians will agree more with some egalitarians than they realise whist disagreeing more strongly with other complementarians. This works the other way too, with some egalitarians perhaps being surprised that they have more agreement with some complementarians and more disagreement with other egalitarians than they are expecting.
We may do well to see the debate as operating on a spectrum or continuum rather than there being a binary choice. Moreover, we have increasingly begun to think about where we sit on an axis often defined in terms of hard v soft complementarianism. However, things are a little more complex than that. As well as the hard/soft axis, there is what we might refer to as the thick/thin or narrow/wide axis.
This means that we should all be able to plot our position somewhere in one of the quadrants created in the diagram above.
What do I mean by those definitions? Well, when we talk about hard/soft, I would suggest that we are thinking primarily in terms of our understanding of headship, authority and submission. Hard Complementarians are those who would argue that the word kephale (head) specifically describes a form of hierarchical authority. They would, rightly insist that this is not about nature but about role and function. Men and women are created equally in God’s image and are co-heirs in Christ but take on specific hierarchical roles in the home and church. Hard Complementarians would argue that there is an asymmetry to the relationship between husbands and wives. Husbands are to sacrificially love their wives but not submit. Wives are to submit to and revere their husbands. This has implications for gender roles in the church.
Soft complementarians would agree that yes men and women are created equally and are co-heirs. They would further agree that Scripture talks about husbands as “head” or kephale. This word cannot be evacuated of the sense of authority but we must talk about the nature of the authority, what is the authority to do? It is to provide, protect and guide. Incidentally, this overlaps into shepherding language when thinking about church leadership. Soft complementarians would further insist that submission is mutual because we submit to one another. There is a radical, in New Testament culture requirement for husbands to sacrificially love their wives which is a form of submission by putting them first. This mirrors the way in which masters are instructed in Ephesians 6 to act towards their slaves in the same way that the slaves are required to act towards them.
This however only gives one axis and doesn’t fully explain the positions and practices that different complementarians hold to. This is why we need to talk about the thick/thin axis too. Thin complementarians would answer the questions “Why are husbands described as ‘the head’?” and “Why can only men be elders?” by saying, “because this is what Scripture commands.” Now, you might find this a frustrating response but it is important because what they are arguing is that we should not go beyond Scripture both in what Scripture asks of us and why Scripture asks those things of us. That’s a healthy and indeed crucial principle.
What it means practically is that the narrow-complementarian would argue that we shouldn’t go looking for specific gender differences or attempt to over define them. A narrow-complementarian would be wary of attempting to describe something called Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood. It’s not that they are claiming that differences between the sexes don’t exist, it’s that they are saying that the Bible is not intended to speak about these things and therefore, to attempt to give a Biblical definition is to engage in theological second guessing. Secondly, thin complementarians would argue that because of this, we should stick to the Biblical statements, commands, permissions and prohibitions. Thin Complementarians would say that this is limited specifically to how husbands relate to their wives and how church government is to function.
Wide Complementarians would, I’m sure, agree with the premise that we shouldn’t engage in theological second guessing and would want to stay within the lines of what Scripture is clear on. They would however, be more confident about what Scripture says about the distinction between male and female and therefore implications for wider life. So, thick complementarians tend to be more willing to talk about Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. They also tend to be more willing to extend the implications beyond church and home with implications about types of jobs and also whether or not women can hold positions of authority in the workplace and public life.
Now, we need to remember again, two things. First, these axes are not binary but continuums. You may for example lean towards a thin complementarianism but have greater, if still cautious, confidence than others about what Scripture does and doesn’t say about men and women. Secondly, we need to take both spectrums into account.
It is possible to be a hard-wide, hard-narrow, soft-wide or soft-narrow complementarian. So, some would argue that there are clear differences between men and women meaning than women should not be elders, lead, preach, teach in church and should primarily act as home-makers under the direction of their husbands. They would also argue that rarely, if at all should women take on roles in the workplace. They might allow for some roles such as teaching but I suspect that this would reflect a view that those are really roles that belong in the home. This would be a type of hard-thick complementarianism.
Hard-thin complementarians might insist that only men can be elders and preach/teach in the church. They may or may not consider it possible for women to lead worship and serve as deacons depending on how those roles are understood. They may have particular views of what decision making should look like in the home but beyond that would insist that there are no restrictions on women in public life and the workplace.
I guess it would generally be assumed that soft-complementarians would be Soft-narrow, that they would take a narrow view of what Scripture has to say. However, I think it is possible to be “soft-wide”. Some complementarians would argue that how headship is worked out in the home is contextual. They would also argue that there should be no limits or barriers for women in the workplace. However, they may cautiously argue that men and women will, generally speaking, bring gender differences to how they carry out those roles. A female Managing Director or Prime Minister would be different to a male MD or PM.
It is worth observing too, that a further dynamic is at work. Our thinking and practice are culturally, contextually shaped too. There are debates that make perfect sense in a US context but less so in a UK or Australian context. I suspect too that many of these debates would be bewildering to those in non-western cultures.
Well, my aim here isn’t to argue for a particular position. Rather, I thought it might be helpful, both for conversations within complementarianism and between complementarians and egalitarians to set out a little, the lay of the land. You may well find that you are able to place yourself somewhere on the map -and you may find it helpful to place others too. Of course if you are an egalitarian, you may be beginning to think through whether there are equivalents on your side of the debate and perhaps begin to map where you are onto them.
Faithroots 
4 comments
Comments are closed.