I’ve recently been writing a little about the different strands of complementarian thinking. You can read about my attempts to map out the field of play, here. I’ve also commented about the problems when you don’t hear each other well, here.
I wanted to pick up a little more on the specific aspect of the debate reflected in that article and in Matthew Robert’s talk. The critique made of “thin” or ”narrow” complementarianism by wide-complementarians as represented by the talk is because they insist on focusing narrowly on what Scripture commands on the matter, it means that they are in effect making the rules arbitrary because we are complementarian when it comes to church and marriage simply because “God says so.”
As I explained in the article, I believe that yo be a misunderstanding of the narrow-complementarian position. Indeed, it should be inconceivable for us to suggest that God’s Word is in anyway arbitrary or disconnected from reality.
However, I think it is important for us to recognise a further point about why we restrict ourselves to what God’s Word says on the matter, and indeed on any matter. For clarification, I don’t think that this should just mean overt commands and precepts, there are other ways that God reveals his will through Scripture and so the story line of Scripture is helpful too. However, it is important that we stick with what the Bible has to say about men and women rather than looking to natural law principles.
Why does this matter? Well it helps us to remember exactly what we do and don’t mean when we say that God’s Word is not disconnected from the real world as we know it. Yes, there is a connection but there is also an order, a direction of travel. Remember that when we think about things concerning human nature and human relationships, we start from the point that we are made in God’s image which means whether we are thinking about Fatherhood or husbands then it is never that God is a bit like us, it is always that we get to be a bit like him.
It’s a bit like when we look at the Old Testament purity laws. Many people have attempted to rationalise them as being about public health. Whilst some of the rules seem to fit that, plenty don’t. The rules on clean and unclean were not to be obeyed because they would keep you well, although some might. They were to be obeyed because God commanded them. This did not make the laws arbitrary. Rather, it meant that they had a greater purpose, summed up as “man does not live by bread alone but by God’s Word.”
This is important, because if I look to things like reason and experience alongside Scripture to determine my ethics, then I risk giving the impression that God’s commands are so because God has made them due to some good, some reasoning, some law outside and over him. Now, I believe that most, if not all “wide complementarians” would be shocked at any such suggestion. This would not be their intent. So, it is also vital that we are hearing each other clearly. I suspect too, that whilst some are arguing from reason and experience, for others, this is not their intent. Rather, they are not “wide” because they think we can go beyond Scripture, they are “wide” because they think that Scripture gives wider or thicker teaching on human relationships.
Now, I’ve said that part of the problem is that we can end up mishearing each other and misunderstanding one another. However, this also places a responsibility on us to communicate clearly too. To be sure, it is a mishearing if a narrow complementarian is accused of making God’s will arbitrary but it is also incumbent on them not to talk as though God’s will is arbitrary.
Similarly, if a wide-complementarian is accused of seeking to go beyond Scripture, when they do not, then it is incumbent on the narrow complementarian to hear them carefully. However, the wide-complementarian must take some responsibility for the misunderstanding when he accuses the narrow-complementarian of being arbitrary and disconnecting God’s Word from reality.
When we are both listening and communicating more carefully, we can have a better conversation.
Faithroots 