I’m sure when some of you read the title, you thought I was going to be making some shallow comment on how we are indoctrinated from childhood to accept the patriarchy through seemingly charming and benign fairy stories.
I’m not.
The element of the Goldilocks story I want to draw out is the ‘just right’ part.
Porridge too hot… too cold… just right.
Bed too hard… too soft… just right.
Complementarianism that is over-realised, being built on precautionary principles or leaning too far into culturally influenced biases – too restrictive…..
Under-realised complementarianism being diminished through worldly progressiveness – too loose…
Complementarianism that is biblically sound, theologically applied – juuuust right.
Where did “complementarianism” come from?
Complementarianism is “the belief that God made men and women equal and distinctive: equal in value and dignity, and distinctive in certain responsibilities and roles.”[1] In short, we see this equal value and distinctiveness expressed in creation (Genesis 1 and 2), in Jesus’ treatment of women but choice of disciples who were all male and then in the pastoral teachings of Peter and Paul (cf. 1 Peter 3, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5:21-33). I hold this position personally and it has underpinned much of my writing (for instance on parenting, in the workplace, on money, being a Christian woman and on Bible teaching).
It’s a modern term encapsulating an ancient God-created goodness. But the term itself has only been around since 1988 when, in response to the cumulative effects of progressive culture on biblical authority, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) published the Danvers Statement.[2] That statement set out the CBMW’s core beliefs regarding equality and distinctness and reaffirmation of male headship.
We should be moved to wonder why this statement was not needed prior to that moment. As pointed out by Dani Treweek, “In response to changing societal values and norms, the 1970s evangelical agenda became increasingly preoccupied with calling both church and society to reembrace “traditional family values” before it was too late. Central to such efforts was the argument that gendered separation between the domestic and economic spheres was not primarily cultural enactments of distinctions between men and women, but the compulsory and natural result of unchanging theological distinctions between them.” (Dani Treweek, The Meaning of Singleness, 30). This might make it sound like an appeal to an earlier (in many ways imagined) status quo by dressing it up as theology. However, just because traditional family values have connotations of the Victorian sainted mother or the post-war 1950s woman in the kitchen and 2.4 children, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a theological truth and created good in gendered distinction and functional difference. How it has been expressed (theologically or culturally) through time will change, but the biblical truth remains the same.
Prior to CBMW’s statement and the rise of complementarian debate, the cultural positioning of women in society were in many ways compatible with biblical norms.[3] Women did not hold office, or if they did it was rarely. They were not church leaders and did not generally hold spiritual or civil authority. Of course, it was not so clean cut. Women worked in a variety of capacities. They tilled the land, took apprenticeships in the towns and worked in service. But their ability to have a voice, wield power and have control over their own lives was limited. The first wave of feminism was about liberation from situations that oppressed women and within which they had no power. That liberation was to be through a change in laws to allow the vote, access to education, workplace reforms and so on. Second wave feminism in 1960s and 1970s was about equality and while there were many aspects worthy of women’s voices (the move towards criminalization of rape within marriage for one), there was for the first time, a cultural movement that placed women in positions en masse that would be directly at odds with Christian teaching on the relative functions and positioning of men and women.
Under-realised complementarianism
Where this cultural trajectory has taken us is a potential issue with what I have termed “under-realised complementarianism” that leans into the worldly progressiveness. This deems various points of scripture to be no longer culturally relevant or arcane. This might seem liberating for women, but it leads us to an application of scripture that does not fully realise (in my view) the beauty of God’s created function and distinction in a co-working environment. This might also include application of complementarianism in-nothing-but-name: by this I mean when we profess the position, but perhaps don’t know what to apply and how and so we don’t really apply it at all. Perhaps we are also concerned that the world would not like what they saw, deeming it to be old-fashioned and out of touch. But the application of our biblical convictions is important. We are not to just read the word, we are to do what it says (James 1:22). As noted by Beynon and Tooher “The first step is to recognize that because we are naturally sinful, we have a tendency to privilege our cultural perspective over the teaching of the Bible…the equality of men and women is strengthened, not diminished, by the differences between them, and these differences extend to what is appropriate and inappropriate in the exercise of ministry.”[4]
Over-realised complementarianism
There is also, by reaction to the cultural trajectory, what I have termed “over-realised complementarianism”. By explaining this, I have to turn to the US, and to more terms in quotation marks so I hope you bear with me.
Narrow or Broad?
9Marks author, Jonathan Leeman, coined ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’ complementarianism.[5] ‘Narrow’ in his view, would be the affirmation of complementarianism that is not much beyond biblical texts such as Eph. 5:22 and 1 Tim. 2:12. This he sees as an attempt to remain true to the written word and to avoid pushing scripture further than it should go, or to use Leeman’s words, to “not bind what scripture doesn’t”.
‘Broad’ complementarianism is much more prescriptive about what women can and cannot do. For example, John Piper has previously written lists of things that a woman can do. The implication being that anything outside of that list would be problematic. He notes that women should not hold roles that would put “a strain on the humanity of both” men and women, for example women should not be umpires as it would occasion them to adjudicate between male players (thereby having authority over them).[6] This position seems to place much of the responsibility for complementarianism on the shoulders of women. Which is ironic, if they need to be the leaders in this position. I agree that there are situations in which we all (men and women) need to carefully consider our decisions and, in some cases, be voluntarily self-limiting, just as Christ himself did. But placing the burden of limitation on women needs to be balanced with the Christ-like character of men in their leadership. It also, in being so prescriptive, seems to push Scripture further than it should and does end up binding where Scripture does not.
Leeman notes that “If the narrow camp is driven by a biblicist impulse, the “broad” camp is driven by a theological impulse.” While I appreciate what is attempted, a “theological impulse” seems, to use the classic legal argument from The Castle, like “It’s the vibe.” This is an over-realised complementarianism that starts with good intentions but ends up treating women as inferior under the guise of theological truth. It leans more into culture, or a reaction against it, than into Scripture. It’s a position that is founded on, rather, a theological vibe that is shored up by a fear of the slippery slope.
The slippery slope
An example from here in Australia explains the slippery slope argument. A recent article in Australian Presbyterian (AP) online magazine noted that “The question, however, we need to ask ourselves—in the reformed camp—is whether this desire to employ female pastoral workers/pastors is a natural outworking of Complementarianism or, is it a sign of Capitulationism? In other words, have we been led to this position (i.e., the desire for female pastoral staff) by deducing it from Scripture via ‘good and necessary consequence’ or, rather, have we capitulated to the wisdom of the world, societal pressure, self-righteous pragmatism, or the long tentacle of wokeism?”
And, these issues “could become precursors of a liberal trajectory given female ordination is usually one giant step for females, but one small step for un-ordained female workers/pastors.”[7]
Now, this is a Presbyterian piece, and I am an Anglican so I recognize there are key differences. However, what this suggests is that hiring non-ordained staff is not complimentary co-working of the people of God (as we in fact see among Jesus’ followers) but a capitulation to wokeism, which is an alarming accusation. It also says that it might not be un-biblical now but it could be un-biblical in the future. This would restrict women now because of something that might happen in the future. This is similarly disturbing and has the potential to rob women of opportunity and impoverish the church through exclusionary practices that are not biblically based.
I appreciate that the piece comes from a sincere wish to strengthen the church. The outworking though is problematic.
Perhaps this position also comes from a wistfulness to have an approach to complementarianism that is “set and forget” – as in, we find the clear role description for men and women and we stick to it so we don’t have to worry about crossing boundaries.
Except the complementary co-working of men and women involves humans. Which means we can’t set and forget. It means we need, on a solid biblical basis, to embrace the uniqueness of every co-working relationship of distinct individuals and by conversation and prayer, work out what complementarianism looks like in that context and keep reviewing and communicating as the co-working relationship evolves and matures. This is something that has recently been looked at in academic work presented recently which is discussed below in search of Goldilocks complementarianism.
But before we go there….
We must always be careful to critically review ourselves, sifting what is cultural from what is biblical. We need, in humility and repentance, to recognize when cultural biases have affected how we think and behave and treat others.
This is a stark thing to say, but we need the humility to recognize when we are not complementarian, but culturally sexist.
There are some cultural hangovers that have spread their tentacles through “complementarianism” that would make our biblical position over-realised. Attitudes that infantilise or patronise, that assume she is less able to understand theology, or dismissing her emotions, concerns or opinions could all be simple character flaws (that need to be repented of!). Or they could be cultural biases that still influence how we view women – not as different, but as inferior. Just because we are Christian doesn’t mean that we are not influenced by, or products of, psycho-social history and modern culture.
There are some things that we do that are fully within the complementarian model that the world views as sexist. I have written about that before (Is sexism inherently sinful?) and I do not have an issue with the application of our biblical convictions, even when the world does. What I mean here is the wise and humble sifting of what is biblical complementary relationships and what is cultural biases.
Towards ‘Goldilocks’ complementarianism
The American and Australian responses are very different, perhaps because the outworking in practice has been very different. In Australia, in Sydney, we’re more on the narrow end and less prescriptive. But we have cultural hangovers that make our application clunky which has resulted in many church staff teams lacking a female presence, perspective and voice.
Some great work is being done in Australia to correct the balance while still holding fast to our theological convictions. Of note is the biblical scholarship of Claire Smith’s God’s Good Design, the work of Graham Beynon and Jane Tooher in their book Embracing Complementarianism and more recently the work of Claire Deeves on which she presented at this year’s Priscilla and Aquila Centre Conference.[8] Her work has involved the study of women in church contexts who are all complementarian and conservative evangelicals in the reformed tradition. A positive outcome was that most of the issues raised were non-gender specific. What this means though is that if there were negative aspects to the senior ministers communication, strategy implementation, conflict management and relational skills, then it was negative for both genders on the team. Where gender was raised it was in relation to situations in which the woman felt she had to fight to be heard specifically because she was a woman and drowned out by the male voices. Other issues that were gendered were feelings of isolation as a woman within the male environment, lack of structural gateways that would allow a woman to speak into church issues affecting women of the church and generally not being part of the discussion. Ministry silos can also be an issue which is raised by both Deeves and Beynon and Tooher. For Deeves’ participants, this might end up looking like a role description as loose as going away to deal with women’s/children’s ministry as a way of just taking it off the senior minister’s plate. As understandable as that is, it means that there is no co-working and the female minister lacks direction and has more authority over her ministry area than she would like. Beynon and Tooher’s concern “is that if ministries become mainly separate, there isn’t much complementing going on.”[9]
The goal in this recent Australian work is complementary co-working that preserves male leadership but makes room for women’s voices to be heard, and their perspectives considered in decision making. As observed by Claire Deeves: “The women trust you to lead. Perhaps it’s time we trust the women to be in the room and submit.”
Beynon and Tooher’s book contains real practical assistance to explore application of complementary co-working principles within a ministry team which are incredibly helpful. Deeves’ work identifies three key pillars of focus: Making a valuable contribution, having a voice/being heard and having a personal relationship (in terms of having a good working relationship that includes enough knowledge to do life and work together). These principles could apply to either gender but in terms of applying them for women within a complementarian environment there are some helpful pointers. Ministers can review their structures and the places where women get to voice a perspective for the (over 50%) female population of the church. They can also focus on ensuring their female (or all) staff feel they are making a valuable contribution and how the structures, systems and management style might suggest otherwise to them.[10] It is also worth on the part of the minister and female staff member having a conversation about what complementarianism looks like in their context: where the boundaries are, what the management and rhythms of the week will look like, when and so on.
What is critical in this work, is that it approaches complementarianism from a positive perspective that is practical, allows contextual difference and leaves room for amplification of co-working of teams in all their uniqueness, rather than a set-and-forget that places the burden on women prescriptively restricting themselves in all circumstances, even when it is not biblically warranted.
This starts leading us to “Goldilocks” complementarianism that is just right, albeit applied in a bespoke manner in different churches. Crucially, this will always be a conversation as the church is the push-me-pull-you between culture and scripture. But as long as it is a conversation, and important work by those such as Beynon and Tooher and Deeves continues, we can apply our biblical convictions wisely and faithfully in a way that models the truth and beauty of scripture, to the glory of God.
[1] Graham Beynon and Jane Tooher, Embracing Complementarianism, 9
[2] https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement/
[3] I am not stating that this was a good thing, or that the position and experience of women and how they were treated was biblical, just observing that the cultural norms did not cause too much anxiety with regard to biblical theology.
[4] Graham Beynon and Jane Tooher, Embracing Complementarianism, 18-19
[5] Jonathan Leeman, A Word of Empathy, Warning and Counsel for “Narrow” Complementarians, 9Marks 2 August 2018
[6] John Piper, What’s the Difference, 63
[7] https://ap.org.au/2024/03/18/complementarianism-or-capitulationism/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1F8HmZpaGVB0pCW46m67qr0EJpD0btkV0UVCUurVTA8NtYDtNjsrBcCxk_aem_AQhGnS73S7uvh0m-N8QyAGBO27VjyLbr9fcl67NmD6v4uYGapCktRyS4e8iGJ2XEAJd2zyCbfwC7g50dCSdpMkW_
[8] Talks were given at the 2024 Conference on 5th February. Talks can still be accessed with registration here: https://paa.moore.edu.au/conference/2024-conference/
[9] Graham Baynon and Jane Tooher, Embracing Complementarianism, 14
[10] Importantly, a minister may feel that the female member if staff is valued but if the staff member has no clear role description, is not part of strategizing, has limited opportunity to speak or be heard, it is a lack of value that is communicated to them.