In response to my recent article on the different types of complementarianism, one stand out comment came back. A reader suggested that both complementarians and egalitarians alike have the same problem, they are essentially arguing about “who is in charge?” The result is that essentially the debate is about status, hierarchy and power. This goes against Jesus’ teaching that we are to become the servant of all, just as he humbled himself to serve.
Well, I think there is a point there, too often, our arguments have been around status, position and hierarchy. In that the complementarian-egalitarian debate has at times seemed to be a church version of the “feminism v patriarchy” struggle then that is true. And, the way I’ve heard the arguments made, it has seemed that for some, the priority has been about removing glass celilings, to enable career promotions within the church, whereas for others, it has been about keeping the glass ceiling in place and preserving the upper echelons for men. Dare I say, not just any men either, specifically those who belong to the right old-boys club.
However, I don’t think that has to be the case and for a lot of people, both complementarians and egalitarians alike, it is not about “who is in charge” in that sense. First, for many, perhaps most of the egalitarians I know, the question isn’t about equal status in a hierarchy, rather it is about wanting to see women use all the gifts God has given them and take the kind of responsibility for the care of others that they believe they should be doing. They see Gospel ministry as being about serving, and about not being unduly limited in how they serve.
Secondly, I don’t think that complementarianism has to be -and indeed – in plenty of cases, I don’t think it is about who is in charge in the sense of hierarchy, power and control. Rather, if as I’ve argued previously, headship is to do with provision and protection, then it is not about lording it over others, it is about how you serve, it is about your posture and priorities whether in the church or at home.
This is why I keep coming back to the point. We are not meant to think of a church as being a hierarchy. It’s not the equivalent of a business, an institution like the police or army, nor is it comparable to the Government in that respect. We are not meant to think of a pyramid with the pastor at the top, then the elders, then the deacons and finally the church members.
Instead, we are meant to think of the church as being a family, an extended household. That’s why it needs people who act as fathers and people who act as mothers. The big thing that would change the whole dynamic of the debate would be if we moved away from it being about hierarchy, power and position and made it about “how does the family function?”
Faithroots 