I recently had some correspondence with Andrew Bartlett, author of “Men and Women in Christ”, in response to some of my articles on Faithroots about complementarianism. As a result, Andrew kindly sent me a copy of his book and asked me to review it. So, here is the review or rather part one. It’s my intention to offer a short review here and then in further posts to engage with some of Andrew’s arguments in the book.
Andrew writes in responses to a debate that in recent years has caused substantial division within Evangelicalism. It is of note that a recent attempt to work for greater unity amongst Evangelicals or at least Reformed Evangelicals, a UK version of The Gospel Coalition stops short of recognising potential unity between egalitarians and complementarians. As a reformed complementarian I find this disappointing. Readers of this blog will know that one of my concerns has been t see a better conversation between the different camps on this subject.
Bartlett shares that concern for a better conversation and starts in exactly the right place to go if we are to have it, back to Scripture. His approach is as follows. First, he sets out the background to the debate and then he takes us back into the history of complementarianism. There is a point to this, his argument is that whilst complementarians accuse their interlocutors of novelty, their own position n is itself novel. He then works through the key Bible passages relevant to the debate including Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 11 & 14 and 1 Timothy 2.
However, he chooses to begin with 1 Corinthians 7, a text which is so often neglected in the debate and absent from complementarian arguments. Andrew argues that this is a major oversight because by insisting that men and women do not have authority over their own bodies but rather over each other when it comes to sexual intercourse that this is evidence of mutual submission.
I agree with Andrew that this Bible passage is both overlooked and significant. I write as a complementarian who believes that mutual submission within the context of the husband’s headship is the patter offered in Ephesians 5. However, in terms of the ordering and structure of an argument, I wonder if this is a helpful starting point. The order in which we select and consider Scripture does matter and I am not convinced that Andrew offers a case for starting here, beyond that it has been overlooked, given that this focuses on one aspect of married life and given that the idea of mutual submission is not alien to all complementarian positions.
I talk in terms of multiple complementarian positions and one of the strengths of the book is that Bartlett is one of the few authors to recognise first the diversity of views within both egalitarian and complementarian camps and the relationship/overlap between the two so that we are not talking about a binary choice but rather a continuum
His challenge on the question of “novelty” is helpful too. It is not as simplistic as that complementarianism is the traditional/historical position. It is true that often in history, the theory and practice has pointed to an emphasis n male supremacy over women rather than men and women being treated as equal but different. Complementarians need to come to terms with this.
However, at the same time, I would push back and argue that whilst this means that the situation is complex or messy, it does not mean that complementarianism is a novel, modern position. I say this for two reasons. First, that any position that seeks to challenge and reform will have elements within it that are rooted in traditional thinking and aspects that although may or may not offer a better application of Scripture are historically novel. I would argue that this was true of the Reformation as well as renewal movements such as The Brethren, Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement. There is therefore a huge difference between insisting that complementarianism is a pure continuation of an unbroken tradition and arguing that it is not novel.
Secondly, I don’t think that Bartlett gives sufficient attention to those examples throughout history including from Augustine, Calvin and Matthew Henry of theologians who did question the assumption that men are superior by nature to women whilst still insisting on male headship in marriage. This is something I will pick up in more detail in a future article.
What I particularly appreciate about Bartlett’s approach is that his primary and dominant focus is on understanding what Scripture actually says and means. I may not agree with all his interpretation, but it is crucial t recognise this. Too often, complementarians have entrenched their position by insisting that they are the only ones taking Scripture seriously and painting egalitarians as either liberal or on the slippery slope to liberalism. Bartlett clearly does not fit such an accusation and nor do many Egalitarians I know. This is one reason why I think that the Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic has been unhelpful to the conversation. Furthermore if complementarians want to take Scripture seriously, then they must be willing to engage where problems are found with their own exegesis.
I think there is much to commend the book. In fact, my biggest criticisms are more to do with how it has been marketed. First, I’m not sure that, it is best described as “fresh light” because primarily Andrew is drawing our attention to arguments already made. It is perhaps rather truer that neither side hade heard the argument made by the other. This may also be hindered by much of his engagement with other commentators tends to be with those who have taken up a position on the debate. The challenge I guess is as to whether or not it is even possible to approach those texts, this side of the debate without our approach being shaped by it. It would be fascinating though to consider how someone unaware of egalitarianism and complementarianism would read Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2.
Secondly, Andrew’s career background is in arbitration and the cover notes make much of this. However, I’m not convinced that this is as relevant as marketed. Whilst the book recognises strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the debate, it doesn’t seem to me to be offering neutral arbitration. Andrew has a position; he sits somewhere on the continuum. Whilst he labels it as a form of complementarianism without hierarchy in the final chapter, I’d argue that it is better termed “soft-egalitarianism” which is perhaps the closest relation to soft/narrow complementarianism. Soft/narrow complementarianism recognises mutual submission and tends not to emphasise hierarchy but still argues for a distinction of roles within marriage and the church that arise out of headship.
What I like about the book though is that this is a genuine contribution to a conversation about what God’s Word says. It is well written and argued. The scholarship is serious as is Andrew’s commitment to deep and sustained exegesis. I would strongly recommend it in order to help people on both sides of the debate better understand what many of the arguments are both in terms of what the egalitarian critique of complementarianism looks like at its strongest and also for beginning to highlight where some of the critiques of egalitarianism at its strongest might be.
Because I think that Andrew offers a strong argument and because there is the willingness to enter a proper conversation and end the talking past each other, I believe that the best complement we can pay to his book is to engage fully and fairly with its detailed arguments and this is what I intend to do in future posts.
Faithroots 