I’m a complementarian in regard to church leadership because I believe two things, first that this label best describes the pattern for relationships between husbands and wives in the home. Secondly, that the local church is mean to function as an extended family.
Let me expand on that a little. First, complementarianism is based on the description of Eve as both “like” and “opposite to” Adam. She was like him, created equally in God’s image but there were distinctions, and those distinctions are reflected in role or function. Those last two words may be modern descriptors but reflect, I would argue, a historic understanding. IThis means that there is a kind of order. The husband is “head” and that means he has authority to provide for and protect his family. Within that context, there is a mutuality. Whilst not all complementarians like the term “mutual submission”, there is in agreement that the wife’s submission is reciprocated in the husband’s self-giving sacrifice (and vice versa). The purpose for this is so that marriage will give a picture, an insight into Christ’s relationship to the Church.
The church in the New Testament is portrayed as a household, that means that like a family of the day, there are different people within it. There are stewarding servants (deacons), there are fathers or elders and there are also mothers in the church.
In practice, I’ve argued that this means eldership is male but leadership is broader than eldership and so includes both men and women. There are women who serve as deacons, there are also women who should be particularly involved in spiritual discernment. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have developed a title for that kind of role. However, many churches today, including overtly complementarian ones would have a leadership team that involves both men and women. This is certainly the case at our current church.
However, I think there can be two challenges. From the egalitarian side, I would note two things. First, I think that at times there have been those, particularly from Brethren type roots that have recognised that they got things appallingly wrong in regards to how women were treated both in the church and in the home in the past and so swing to the opposite extreme of egalitarianism in church. Second, and linked to this, I think it is possible to be a functional egalitarian in the church whilst the balance of home-life leadership and decision making still would look unhealthy. The husband doesn’t mind what happens in church as long as he is boss at home.
For complementarians, there can be a few risks too. First, there is the same risk, that things are adapted in the church, perhaps more begrudgingly whilst there isn’t much change at home. Secondly though, I think that there can be a resistance to fully engaging women in church leadership and decision making and that may reflect that homelife does not reflect a complementarian approach.
This is important because I want to suggest that there should be a consistency between what happens at home and in the church. There should be no fear about having women serve on leadership teams and contribute to spiritual discernment because:
- We should be confident that the way they would engage in leadership decisions would be the same as how they would engage in family decisions.
- We should be confident that the way decisions are made in the home reflect what Ephesians 5 teaches about how a marriage should look as it points to Jesus.
If that isn’t the case, then the risk is that we are structuring church life in order to mitigate issues in home life without addressing them. However, if it is the case, then we should be seeing healthy churches that act like a household of God’s people.
Faithroots 