One of the heated discussions I get into most is where (and if) complementarianism becomes sexism and abuse. The main concern is that one directly leads to the other. So I want to be clear from the get-go. Sinfulness leads to sexism and abuse. Complementarianism can be (and has been by some) miscommunicated, mishandled and even weaponised in a sexist or abusive manner. Many theological aspects and biblical truths have been misappropriated. The common denominator though is humans, not theology.
Let’s be clear about this. Complementarianism has been mishandled by people in the past which has caused hurt and damage to women. The misapplication of Scripture is not a reason to turn away from God’s word however. Scripture gives us a picture of God’s will for men and women. The fact that we fall short of it should be a trigger for us to see how far short we have fallen, and work to close the gap. If we do not hold a mirror up to ourselves and recognise where our theology is mis-applied or has been diluted with cultural sexism, we would be blinding ourselves to our own sinfulness. “Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like” (James 1:23-24). We must be doers of the word, not just hearers of the word.
And our ‘doing’ must be in accordance with God’s perfect will. That is not a set-and-forget state of being. That means constantly evaluating, learning and applying under God’s word, as the Spirit grows us in Christlikeness.
What’s the difference
There are helpful parameters to use as our anchor points however. I will give 3 key points below and then an example of how they would be played out in a real-life context, taking Numbers 30:1-16 as a surrogate:
- Complementarianism: “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.” (Graham Beynon and Jane Tooher, Embracing Complementarianism). This includes male leadership in the home and in the church but expressed through complementarity of relationships. That means, the relationship is still a partnership. The husband, in sacrificing himself for his wife as Christ did for the church, is the kind of man that a wife can submit to in the ultimate decision making. He seeks her input, listens to her opinions and is guided by them, but the ultimate decision making lies with him. This can look different in different contexts. For example, one married couple might agree that the wife takes care of the finances or that the husband does the batch cooking on the weekend. Those are decisions made in the context of a complementary relationship. The pattern is equal and different – not different and inferior, but the responsibility for the family unit, the final decisions and their presentation to God holy and blameless lie with the husband (Eph. 5:25-27).
- Sexism: This is the prejudicial opinions and behaviour towards women and girls on the basis of their gender. For example, infantilising women (ie believing they are more silly, stupid, innocent and in need of a ‘father’ or strong man) is the basis for mansplaining whereas demonising women is the basis for victim blaming. The gender pay gap exists in large part because work typically associated with women (such as teaching, caring, nursing) has become financially de-valued because its not seen as “proper” work or work that is not as valuable as work undertaken by men. The gender pain gap exists because medicine and medical research has favoured male opinion and a view that women are not separate beings to research but ‘little men’. These are all sexist beliefs that can spread tentacles into complementarian beliefs. For instance, a husband and wife who both work but the husband leaves the household and child care to the wife, could be the outcome of the husband’s decision making in the context of partnered discussion, with he being the kind of sacrificial mate that the wife can submit to. It could also be the outcome of a sexist belief that the man goes to work, and the woman takes care of everything else whether she is working or not. The former would be an example of complementarianism. The latter would be an example of sexism/misapplication of complementarianism. These are not biblical and we need to guard against these cultural biases influencing our gendered view from a biblical perspective and its pastoral outworking within marriage, and pastoral care.
- Abuse: Not all sexism leads to abuse. But all abuse has sexism and misogyny at its core. Abuse is physical and non-physical (eg emotional, psychological, financial, spiritual) acts that harm another person. In a home setting, this could include a husband using money as a means of control by deliberately withholding finances or not allowing the wife her own bank cards. It could be weaponising Scripture to force, coerce or badger the wife into unwanted sex, including the threat of affairs or other punitive action if she does not comply. It could be physical shoving, slapping, hitting and worse. This is an abomination. It is not biblical.
They are not a continuum
I have categorised three points here but they are not a continuum. Some argue that they are and I acknowledge that some behaviour has expressed the latter two in the name of the first. This should never be so. My prayer is that if you are reading this and you are feeling damaged because of something being done in the name of complementarianism, to seek wise counsel from those you trust and from a trained professional (your minister may not be trained or equipped to deal with these questions if they include domestic abuse). There is so much more that we could say on each but I raise them here as summaries for the purposes of illustrating the distinction.
This distinction is important because the experience of many women has influenced the discussion around what godly relationships should look like, even to the point of disavowing Scripture where it does not accord with a preferred interpretation. This is an important discussion and one we should be courageous in having so we can best express God’s will for our lives and grow in Christlikeness.
An example from Numbers 30
Numbers 30:1-16 on first reading, gets my back up. It describes the head of the household – the father or husband – having the right of veto over pledges made by the wife/daughter. Reading into this passage from my modern perspective, this immediately feels like infantilisation of women and an unnecessary prohibition on their autonomy.
But we need to look at what it is actually saying and then show how the application could look different as a complementarian, or if complementarianism was being mis-applied.
The focus of this passage is not that men know better than women when it comes to promises, but on whom responsibility falls for rash or unfulfillable pledges. Ecclesiastes 5:1-5 had also cautioned against rash vows as they are taken before God. Therefore God must see them fulfilled as “it is better not to make a vow than to make one and not fulfill it” (Ecc. 5:5). We see the outcomes of a rash vow in Judges 11 when Jephthah impulsively pledges that if God gives him a win, he will sacrifice whatever comes out of his door first (which turns out to be his daughter). An unfulfillable pledge might be in return for this thing a woman wants, the woman pledges her life to work in the temple when she isn’t from the tribe of Levi and so would be barred from that service on the basis of her clan alone (let alone her gender).
What this passage shows us is that women have an “out” of rash promises whereas the men have none.
A complementarian pastoral outworking of this passage would be to seek communication between a man and his wife. While recognising that the husband gets to exercise his responsibility in negating a pledge made rashly, it is not carte blanche to negate all her promises. The focus is on the husband releasing her from an impulsive or unfulfillable promise so that God will not hold her to it. This is a mercy from God that releases us from a promise to him that we would not be able to fulfill.
A sexist outworking of this passage would be to ignore the exegetical basis of the passage and push it further than it intends by claiming authority over any promise of his wifes’ thereby infantilising her and removing her control on the basis that he knows better.
An abusive outworking of this passage would be to attempt to control (by psychological or physical threat) every decision and movement of his wife because of a belief that she does not deserve or is not independently able to have any autonomy.
The fear
Many people who have rejected complementarianism have perhaps done so because they have seen or experienced a sexist (or even abusive) pastoral outworking of something that is biblical and true. What God envisages for us as we relate in the home and in church is, when perfectly applied, truly beautiful and harmonious. But we are not perfect.
However, God’s word still stands true and perfect. It is us that fall short, not his word. So it is important for us to engage in this discussion and encourage communication to ensure that we can see how far short we are, and work with clarity and wisdom to achieve relationships that are closer to God’s will for us.
If you are interested in reading more, I have written elsewhere on various aspects of complementarianism. You can read more here.