Complementarians disagreeing badly

I’ve recently included a series of articles looking at tools to help us to map out the different positions withing evangelical Christianity on the role of men and women in church and family.  One of my reasons for doing this is that I wanted to help us to have a better conversation and even if we disagree to disagree well.

One reason why I think we’ve not done very well at disagreeing, whether it’s on COVID measures, Trinitarian debates such as EFS and in this specific example is that we don’t always listen well and so we represent other views poorly. This leads to us talking past each other.. A good rule to follow is that if I am representing another person’s argument, they should recognise it and before I disagree with it and be able to say “You’ve put my view as well as or even better than I could.” 

I think there is an added danger to this and it is this.  If we cannot represent our contemporaries accurately, can we be relied upon as guides to the past, to historical theologians and to Scripture itself?  Perhaps we guard against that risk by treating those people with greater respect. 

So, I was intrigued and not a little concerned to hear about this talk given at the EFCC’s annual leadership prayer conference where Matthew Roberts was invited to speak on Complementarianism.

The video has recently been reshared by the EFCC as an excellent example of reformed teaching on the subject matter and here is my first concern. 

A church network cannot control its keynote speakers if they chose to go a little rogue but they can be clear about what they are endorsing.  And yes, Matthew does go rogue. Early on he chooses to set up John Steven’s the FIEC National Director as his foil, quoting him and dismissing his view as “Complementarianism Light” with clear pejorative implications.

Now, that would be fair enough in a symposium or debate, particularly where the other person is given immediate right of reply, or where you find yourself responding to that person’s intervention in your own affairs. However, I wonder whether it was really fitting and wise for the EFCC to in effect endorse a personal and tribal attack which seems to set up dogmatic divisions between two networks, supposedly in partnership. This is particularly concerning when the dividing lines were drawn in relation to a secondary aspect of a secondary issue.  That is however a matter for the EFCC.

What I want to pick up on specifically here is the way that Matthew goes about his disagreement which is essentially with those I’ve described in previous articles as “narrow-complementarians”. First, he suggests that the division is between those who believe that complementarianism practices are solely dependent on God’s command, his bare word.  Matthew argues that this means his interlocutors are nominalist, they do not see God’s Word as related to reality here and that they have set up an arbitrary command without reasons.

Before we go any further, it is worth observing that the basic premise that to obey God we only need his word, his direct command is kind of crucial to evangelical Christianity. We are not dependent on further revelation beyond Scripture.  What we would also want to be careful not to do at this stage is to suggest that God, distinct from human reason is in some way arbitrary.  It is crucial to understand that those who disagree with Matthew are not saying that God’s commands concerning church and marriage are not saying that they obey something arbitrary and certainly are not saying the commands are without reason.

We therefore need to distinguish three things.

1. Disagreeing with the reasons articulated by others.  So, narrow complementarians would argue that the basis/reason for God’s commands do not reflect an ontological difference, or difference in nature between men and women set out in detail in Scripture.
2. Arguing that we are not given certain detailed reasons, so that we cannot claim to know for certain.  So, some narrow complementarians might agree that there is a greater level of distinction between male and female (providing we don’t identify two natures) but that Scripture does not explicitly teach it.
3. Arguing that there are no reasons for the distinction, it is purely arbitrary.

Matthew appears to suggest the third category and this is a misunderstanding.  It is clear that narrow complementarians agree that there are reasons for the distinctions. They may however disagree about two things.

1. What all the reasons are.
2. How far the distinctions take us and the extent to which they can be applied more widely.

So, I think that narrow complementarians would generally agree that a key reason for the distinction of roles in marriage and church is that marriage reflects God’s relationship to his people, Christ’s relationship to the Church.  The question is whether or not this follows through into other roles in society. 

There is a consequence to this.  I was a little concerned about where things might go in the talk but actually, if you listen on beyond the introduction, you’ll discover that Matthew gives an outline of Complementarian thinking that I’m confident most if not all complementarians would agree with. Because Matthew misreads the position of those who differ from him on the conclusion, he assumes that his argument proves more than he thinks it does. 

When this kind of thing happens you tend to discover that those who disagree with you are left unimpressed, if not offended and definitely unconvinced.  Now, sadly this is where contemporary secular political debating lands because the aim is not to change minds but to bolster your own side.  However, I would hope that in evangelical conversation that we should aim a little higher, seeking to learn from others, to allow for the possibility that God might use them to change our minds where we are wrong but also where we think that we are right and others wrong, that God will use our arguments to change minds.