What's in a Name?
When descriptions hurt more than help.
We Christians are really good at coming up with bigger words to explain something else. In fact, in a little bit, I am going to do just that! We also are good at using words that might not be in our common vocabulary. I have taught students the fundamentals of the Christian faith for over 13 years and often have to make sure to define my terms. The goal was to help a student understand the “Christianese” we use for concepts, beliefs, and doctrines. Some of these words come with lots of baggage too that do not help. Or only cause confusion rather than help clarify beliefs we have about God and his interactions with the world.
Recently, I had been studying two words that do just that. They muddy the waters of what each position believes and yet are so commonly used that people in Christian circles probably have many strings attached to each word, depending on the flavor of Christianity they grew up in. Sure, some may have never heard the words, but I bet many have, and many have notions about those people who hold the “other” view. From there, it becomes a label to lump together one camp versus another camp.
I am referring to the terms complementarian and egalitarian. In the past year, I took a deep dive into these words and the topics that they are attempting to sum up in a word.1 This post will not do a full service to the history and uses of the terms, yet I will try to summarize what I have seen in my study and offer a way of looking at them that does not obfuscate the positions behind the words. I hope to show that both positions actually agree with each other more than many think. And also that both positions could benefit from each other’s labels. The nuance comes down to only a few points. So, here is a brief synopsis of the positions!
Position 1: Commonly referred to as “Complementarianism”
This position believes that while men and women are both created equal in the image of God2, there is a distinction between their roles/functions/positions.3 Men and women are distinctly different and yet complement each other. The term is rooted in that very idea of two making one. The key to this position is what are the distinctions that create the complementing pair? In short, the distinctions are centrally focused on the concepts of leadership or authority.4 Even within this camp, there are differences as to the spheres and levels of leadership. Some believe men are to lead (have authority) in the home, church, and society as a whole. Some believe men are to lead (have authority) in the home and church but NOT in society. Meaning women can be in the workforce as managers, bosses, and CEOs of men and women. Finally, some believe men are to lead (have authority) only in the home, but men and women can serve as leaders in the church and society.
The levels of nuance are multiplied when you discuss how the home is structured regarding decision-making. Does the husband make all the decisions, most of them, or only serve as a tie-breaker? However, every nuance in this position believes that the husband is the main spiritual leader of the home.
Finally, in referring to the church, there are more layers to add to the position. Some will say that women should not lead in any capacity. Some will say women should not lead in teaching, preaching, or aspects of corporate worship. And still, some would narrowly limit being led by women to the specific ordained offices of pastor/elder/deacon.5 Examples of this last nuance would allow women to be directors of ministries, lead male volunteers, and maybe even teach men and women in Sunday school classes.
The term complementarian is claimed to have originated with John Piper and Wayne Grudem in 1988. The story is told in Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism. In short, they prefer that term to traditionalist, hierarchical, or patriarchalist. They state,
“If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial difference between men and women.”
And yet, when those “beneficial” differences are attempted to be defined, they always seem to return to the summary outlined above: leadership/followership or authority/submission.
In everything I have read, an egalitarian would completely agree with Piper & Grudem’s statement about why they prefer the word “complementarian.” But the agreement would not be in name only. There are other aspects that both positions share in common.
Position 2: Commonly referred to as “Egalitarianism”
This position also believes that men and women are both created equal in the image of God, that there are also distinctions and differences between men and women, and that they are made to complement one another. In fact, contrary to Piper & Gruden’s claim, egalitarians were the first to use the term: complementary.
The term egalitarian has political and philosophical origins, mainly in the French Revolution era. Similar concepts can be found in John Locke’s and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s writings about social and political structures. We also saw these ideas unfold during the abolitionist and suffrage movements. It is worth noting that these movements originated in Christian thought. In short, the term has come to carry the idea that all human beings are equal in intrinsic worth and have equal fundamental rights and opportunities in society.
Later, I will comment on what I believe to be a better term for this position. However, I find it worth noting that there are concepts in this position that complementarians also would agree with. Often, pushback comes in the use of political terms like “rights” and “opportunities.” Those are fair because the term did not originate within the theological space. The ideas, though, I believe, do apply as we have seen play out rightly in various movements of the past.
As I mentioned, as far as I can tell in my study, the egalitarian position was actually the first to use the term: complementary. Scholar Paul Jewitt uses the term in 1975 writing,
“According to the creation ordinance, man and woman are properly related when they accept each other as equals whose difference is mutually complementary in all spheres of life and human endeavor.”
I also found another scholar, Mary Evans, who wrote the following in 1983:
“The relation between men and women is presented in terms of diversity, unity, and complementarity.”
As Evans writes, this position is rooted in the complementarian nature of men and women. Yet, the difference is not in leadership/authority/hierarchy. If so gifted, men AND women can serve in leadership capacities in the home, church, and society. In fact, if both positions believe that men and women complement each other differently, I argue that both positions should seek to have men AND women involved across an organization. However, this is where I believe the complementarian position actually betrays itself because many do not seek to have the gifts of women at tables of leadership for major decisions.6 It likes to call itself complementarian but tends to execute leadership in a patriarchal fashion.
Summary:
I admit I could write and write and write on this topic now and will in future posts. Yet, in summary, I would put it this way. Both sides of the argument make claims of equality and complementarity. Both sides believe that God has given distinctions to each gender. Both sides believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Both sides even agree on the interpretive principles of the Bible! What both sides do not agree upon is whether one holds a position of leadership or one of followership based upon gender.
I do think there are some better terms out there to describe the two positions. A more common term being used to describe the ”egalitarian” position is “mutualist.” Within the complementarian circles, you have started to see the use of “Hard Complementarian” and “Soft Complementarian.”7 While this is the preferred term by complementarians, it does a disservice to both positions. To be honest, I think the best descriptors, albeit long, are Mutual-Complementarian and Hierarchical-Complementarian.
In the end, the divide is not nearly as far as many are led to believe. I do not think that there is a huge difference between the two positions, and yet the implications are hugely different. How it is actually lived out is where the divide actually is. How you teach, cast vision, and speak about individual futures are affected by your theological belief on this topic. How married couples function, make decisions, and live life together are affected by your theological belief on this topic. It is important for us to know why we believe what we believe and then aim to put it into practice. What we tell our sons and daughters will depend on that belief.
And what if that belief were far more influenced by culture than you were led to believe? Now, that is a story for another time and another post. The short statement is this: the current complementarian position changed its “why men should lead” in the 19th century, all the while trying to keep the belief that only men should lead…
For now, I leave you with this. I willingly admit this is a bit reductionistic, yet I think it shows the reality of the two positions. Both believe men and women are at their best when working together. The difference lies in how those two pieces line up…
For over a year, I read everything I could about this topic. I have now read over 10,000 pages, and what I find fascinating is that there are easily another 10,000 or more to read. Including many talented and educated writers right here on Substack.
This has not historically been the case for this position. In my study, you see a turn toward this nuanced position in the 20th century. There are hints of it throughout history, but many scholars will admit that the historic position has held that women are inferior and men superior, many using those very terms to describe the differences. One notable complementarian scholar, Dan Doriani, wrote about the church holding this view of difference in a now-removed appendix from the second edition of Women in the Church.
The use of the terms “roles/functions/positions” is also a historically new use of terms to describe the differences between men and women. I would suggest those terms are also problematic because most “roles/functions/positions” can and do change based upon skill or something similar. A very common example given by complementarians is a manager/employee or officer/recruit relationship. Those are poor examples. Managers and Officers are in those positions because of skill, experience, or some other factor that can also be trained or acquired by an employee and recruit. They are not static, never-changing roles. The complementarian position argues a woman can never be a “manager” not based upon gifting, skill, or experience. Rather, based upon gender, something outside her ability to change, something in her very makeup, her being.
I can guarantee there are people who would object to my use of the term authority. They might claim that the concepts of authority and submission are not about having authority over someone but rather a matter of leadership, decision-making, and wise guidance. I do think this is splitting hairs, as positions of leadership also inherently involve aspects of authority. Whether decisive or influential, authority is involved.
In future writing, I plan on unpacking the scriptural arguments for these positions.
As a pastor, I have witnessed this repeatedly. Often, leaders say they sought wisdom from their wives and friends. However, when decisions are made or votes are cast, no women are actually at the table to add their voices. Wisdom is always shared through the voice of the husband or leader, rarely directly from them.
The difference between these two tends to center around whether women can hold positions of leadership in society.