“Complementary” roles… Complementarian theology is presented as a worldview that simply teaches men and women to assume their God-given, “complementary” roles at church and in the home. That may not seem terribly bad on the face of it. We’re also told that these roles are “biblical,” so to be complementarian is to align oneself, apparently, with the word of God. What hasn’t been said, however, is that the roles assigned to men and women are not equal in power or responsibility. Men’s roles at church and in the home consist of being leaders. They assume authority simply because they are male. Women, we’re told, are called by God to “submit” to this authority. We’re also told that a woman may not usurp a man’s authority at church or in the home. (The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Danvers Statement, 1987) The implications of this worldview are staggering. Men, apparently, are suited to greater levels of responsibility, simply because they are male. Women are not suited to greater levels of responsibility, simply because they are female. There are two significant problems with this system of thought: there is an obvious imbalance of power/responsibility, and it is based exclusively upon gender. Does the Bible really suggest that women are not suited to positions of leadership? I don’t believe it does. Deborah is a well known example of a woman who occupied a position of leadership and spiritual authority in the Old Testament. Many scholars view Junia in the New Testament as an apostle—a position of spiritual authority in the early church. Similarly, Phoebe is introduced by Paul as a “diakonos” in Romans chapter 16. Most often when this word is translated into English, it is rendered “minister” or “deacon.” Priscilla explained the gospel more clearly to a man named Apollos. Three women, Mary, Mary and Joanna, brought news of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to the disciples—ironically the disciples (all male) did not believe. The Bible does not tell us that men are more suited to positions of authority than women. Nevertheless, this notion has long had a place in church doctrine and tradition. In other words, it is present in our theology—the way we systematically make sense of God and his revelation to us, the Bible. Some of the renowned authors of what became orthodox theology with regard to the roles of men and women in the church were: Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, St. Augustine and St. Jerome. When they read the Bible, they perceived in its pages a depiction of a male-dominated hierarchy. Their views on women are summarized below: Tertullian (160-225 A.D.): Regarding the first woman, Eve: “You are the devil’s gateway, you are the unsealer of that [forbidden tree]; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man.” Origen (135-245 A.D.): “It is not proper for a woman to speak in church, however admirable or holy what she says may be, merely because it comes from female lips.” Clement (150-215 A.D.): “Man is stronger and purer since he is uncastrated and has a beard. Women are weak, passive castrated and immature.” (as cited in Trombley, 2003, pp. 234-237) Augustine (354:430 A.D.): “It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater…This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power. (as cited in Wijngaards, 2010) St. Jerome (342-420): “Woman is the root of all evil” (Phelips, 1906, p. 291). It is disturbingly evident that these men saw women as morally, intellectually and spiritually inferior to men. It was on the basis of this alleged inferiority that women were denied positions of leadership and responsibility. Some might suggest that these examples are very “Catholic.” Protestants, it may be assumed, are not influenced by such obvious prejudice. Sadly, this assumption would be mistaken. John Calvin, one of the “fathers” of the Protestant Reformation, drew heavily from the writings of St. Augustine in the formulation of his own systematic theology. Like Augustine, Calvin concluded that women were created to be the servants of men. He literally described Eve as Adam’s “inferior aid” (Trombley, 2003, p. 83). Today, complementarians such as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood draw similar conclusions about the account of creation found in the book of Genesis. One influential member of this council, John Piper, proudly referred to himself as a “seven point Calvinist” (desiringgod.org), even though Calvinism is only noted for five main theological premises. And so, present-day theologians are still perceiving (or perhaps I should say misperceiving) God and the Bible through the lenses of Tertullian, Origen, Clement, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and John Calvin. All of these men lived in cultures that were profoundly patriarchal. It is not surprising that they saw God and the Bible through the lenses of their own cultural norms. These norms, however, were anything but “biblical.” So then, it is theological tradition that depicts men as better suited to positions of leadership than women. This depiction, however, is not rooted in the Bible, but rather in ancient cultural prejudices against women. Christians may fulfill various ministry roles in the church, and husbands and wives may fulfill various roles in their homes. These roles may even “complement” one another. The word “complementary,” however, should not be used to justify a systematic imbalance of power or responsibility on the basis of gender. Suggesting that such an imbalance is “biblical” appears badly misinformed.
Posted on: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:11:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015