As a pastor and teacher, I want to not only read books supporting my convictions, but also ones that present opposing viewpoints. I don’t assume whatever theological “camps” or positions I align with get everything right; I know that I am susceptible to reading my own assumptions into Scripture, or being deceived by sin; and, ultimately, I want to let Scripture speak for itself. Furthermore, in my teaching I want to fairly and truthfully represent opposing viewpoints.
I have spent considerable time studying what the Bible says about men’s and women’s roles in the home and in the church, and the arguments and interpretations presented by both the complementarian and egalitarian positions.
In this spirit, I was thankful for someone gifting me The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God’s Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality, by Philip B. Payne. Three things stood out to me:
First, much of Payne’s conclusions about the nature of men and woman, and of how a healthy marriage functions, I would not only agree with, but would heartily affirm (as would all the complementarians I know). His conclusion lists “10 Biblical Principles that Entail Gender Equality.” They are:
- Male and female are equally created in God’s image
- Male and female equally received the creation mandate and blessing
- Redeemed men and women are equally “in Christ”
- Church leadership as service
- Mutual submission in the church and home
- The oneness of the body of Christ
- The priesthood of all believers
- The Spirit gifts all believers
- Liberty in Christ
- In Christ, male and female are equal
To most of his explanations of these things, my response was “Yes and amen!” Regarding #5, while I believe the Bible calls wives to submit to their husbands as head of the marriage, and don’t think the Bible anywhere calls husbands to “submit” to their wives in this sense, I wouldn’t much argue the contention that there ought to be a general submission among believers (Eph. 5:11 could be taken this way), and this includes between husbands and wives (without negating the distinct roles of husbands and wives).
These 10 concluding points make me wonder if Payne really understands the complementarian position. This seems to be confirmed by other statements in the book. For example, he gives the example of his father’s tragic passing climbing Mount Fuji. The day he went was a “miserable, rainy day” and his wife, as well as Philip and his wife urged him not to go, “but he was adamant.” Payne concluded: “Dad died on Mount Fuji because he believed that he, as head of his wife, had the right to do as he chose with no obligation to submit to his wife” (123).
This statement is so far from what most complementarians believe, and so far from their vision and heart for marriage. Yes, in Ephesians 5, we read that wives are to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord,” and that “the husband is the head of the wife.” But we also read that “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies,” being one who “nourishes and cherishes” their wives. The headship of a husband is not a self-seeking “right to do as he (chooses),” but a self-sacrificing nourishing—working for the wife’s health and flourishing—and cherishing—enjoying and delighting in.
The heart of the complementarian position is not about husbands doing as they choose, having a claim on their time and energy and resources without recourse to their wife. It is about God calling husbands to take responsibility for their wives, leading them in what is good, protecting them from what is evil, and going to great lengths to see that they thrive. And doing all this under the rule of God, as one who will give an account to God.
Second, it seems quite clear that Payne works from an assumption that any distinction in leadership among men and woman is incompatible with biblical concepts of equal worth and dignity, oneness in Christ, and freedom in Christ. It should be readily acknowledged by all believers that anytime we approach Scripture with a belief of how things must be, or that two things that appear contradictory must in fact be contradictory, we are bound to find ourselves opposing Scripture at points. We would naturally come to Scripture claiming that God cannot be three persons in one. Most in our culture would naturally come to Scripture claiming that if God is love, he would not send people to hell, and he would support gay marriage.
But just as our limited, fallen minds would be incorrect in these assumptions, so there is no a priori basis for saying that any distinction in leadership among men and women negates equality and dignity, oneness and freedom. Surely Payne knows that complementarians adamantly support the equal worth, dignity, oneness and freedom of men and women.
But he says things like:
“Now, some proponents of gender hierarchy claim that they believe men and women are equal: they are both made in the image of God, have equal worth in God’s sight, and so on. But when it comes to the everyday practice of leadership and use of power, they do not treat women as equal to men.” (pg. xxii-xxiii)
Rather than presenting any argument for why a leadership role reserved for men negates equality, he just assumes that this must be the case.
Does this mean that all leadership and authority negates equality? Even if the Bible did permit women to be pastors, does this mean that the men and women who served as pastors would not be equal in worth and dignity and freedom before God compared to those under their leadership? What about the various other qualifications Scripture gives for pastor/elders: Are those who don’t meet these qualifications not equal in worth, dignity and freedom?
I guess one argument would be: But those qualifications are based on skill, knowledge, and experience, on things one has control over, not based on a built-in, unchangeable fact like one’s gender. But Scripture is replete with examples of God calling certain individuals and groups to roles not based on their qualifications over against others, but based on his choice alone (the Israelites, the Levites, the 12 Apostles, Paul).
If God ordains various leadership roles in society (which all seem to agree), and calls various individuals to those roles for his purposes, it does not follow that such individuals—whomever they are, from whatever groups they may come, whatever qualifications God may give us for determining them—are greater in worth, value, or liberty. And surely, we don’t want to deny that God has the right to establish various leadership roles in his world, and, if God’s people are going to have a part in identifying and installing individuals to those roles, God the right to provide various qualifications for us to abide by.
Third, Payne’s interpretation methods are often not very faithful to the text, and seem intent on making the text say what he wants it to say. Now, some of the texts in question are notoriously difficult, and a range of interpretations have been presented. And for some particular aspects of these, it can be hard to be fully satisfied with any interpretations (I think of the head coverings passage in 1 Corinthians 11).
But other passages are quite clear in their meaning, and it is completely understandable how Christians for centuries have come away from the Bible BOTH affirming the equal dignity and worth of men and women (including in cultures where this was not the case) AND observing a call for men to lead in the church and home.
For example, Payne’s argument for 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (“women should keep silent in the church”) is that it’s not part of Paul’s original writing, but was added later.
His argument for 1 Peter 3:1-7 (“wives, be subject to your own husbands”) is that this is focused on wives with unbelieving husbands, and so “is not describing an ideal Christian community.” While the context makes clear that wives with unbelieving husbands are included in the command, there is no evidence that it limits it to them.
His argument for 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”) is that the “fundamental problem (is) of women who are not properly trained,” and that “the only people 1 Timothy identifies as deceived by the false teachings are women.” This conclusion requires a huge leap in logic. If Paul wanted to say that his words were merely addressing a local problem of untrained women, he surely could have made this clear, and he surely wouldn’t have included verses 13-15, grounding his commands in the objective reality of creation.
As I read arguments and statements from those in the egalitarian camp, I am often left wondering if they have had any experience with godly complementarians. Because much of what they seem intent on correcting is a straw-man. Yes, of course there are loads of men—whatever their claims to Christ—who take leadership and authority to mean something God never intends it to mean, and deny the equal worth, value and dignity of men and women.
But those men are not a picture of the complementarian position, but its abuse. And there are abundant examples of complementarian marriages and churches that—I would contend—present a very beautiful, compelling picture of men’s and women’s complementarian roles in the home and church.
And I have found the leaders in such contexts to be as much against sins of abuse and domination and manipulation and selfishness in husbands as anyone else, if not more so. Such that the arguments and statements I come across from egalitarians make me want to say, “I’m not sure the enemy is who you think it is.”
We can debate the meanings of certain difficult passages of Scripture, sure. And we might not come to the same conclusions. But let’s be careful not to misrepresent one another.
The subtitle of Jonathan Leeman’s recent book Authority is a good description of how complementarians understand God’s intention for authority, including the authority of husbands and pastors: “How Godly Rule Protects the Vulnerable, Strenthens Communities, and Promotes Human Flourishing.”
Yes, there is real authority involved in this, real responsibility, real leadership and, at times, a real making of decisions. But it is not a self-seeking, self-serving, independent, unrestrained, and unaccountable kind of authority. This is especially the case in marriage, where there is a God-given oneness to the relationship. As Leeman says,
“The very purpose of a husband’s authority is to lead his wife… towards oneness…. the husband is trying to draw his wife towards oneness. He is seeking to do that in a compelling, loving, gentle, patient, understanding way.” (Footnote 1)
Elsewhere he says,
“This central emphasis of oneness is something that distinguishes a husband’s authority from every other form of authority… It is tragic, then, how often pastors hear from wives who feel neglected by their husbands, either because they spend long hours at work or because they’re emotionally absent when home. Such husbands have abandoned their first duty: seeking oneness with their wives.” (pg. 172)
This is the heart of the complementarian position, and I find it not only the most natural reading of the biblical text, but also the most compelling picture of God’s wisdom and goodness and self-giving love, with which he rules over us.
Footnote 1: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-authority-does-a-husband-have-over-his-wife