by Sarah
I haven’t finished the post I’d planned for this week. So this week you’re treated to a quick observation that prompts a question.
Spell-check inevitably flags the word “complementarian.” If it isn’t actually a real word, how does that inform our understanding of the idea?
Hmm. I don’t think I agree that complementarian isn’t a real word. It’s certainly inelegant, but its syllables don’t have to flow off the tongue, nor does it have to be in the dictionary, to be “real.”
Still I agree it’s worth interrogating the term. Where does it come from? I’m not really sure, but I don’t think it is that old. I think it was popularized, if not outright coined, by the CBMW crowd in the 80’s-why then?
What does it even mean? In my experience the definition depends heavily on who you ask. Which I personally found confusing and highly anxiety-provoking at one stage of my life.
I love your questions! My original question was meant facetiously, because I’ve wondered the same things.
You’re right that the CBMW coined it in the 1980s: https://cbmw.org/2019/08/01/whats-in-a-name/
In my personal opinion, and some self-described complementarians will agree with me, “complementarian” is simply another word for “patriarchy.”
See, for example, Russell Moore’s comment that “If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a
claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy” (https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-3/JETS_49-3_569-576_Moore.pdf). To be fair, Mr. Moore’s views seem to have changed a bit since this particular comment was written.
Or, let’s look at this comment from Denny Burk’s article, above: “In a 2006 faculty lecture, Andreas Köstenberger argued that ‘patriarchy’ [as an alternative to the word complementarianism] simply has too many negative connotations owing to decades of feminist propaganda.”
On the surface, if I didn’t have the American Evangelical context, I’d think complementarianism was talking about two equal beings who “complement” each other, like a yin and a yang. Somewhat similarly to what Denny Burk described in the article above, ironically. To me, the word doesn’t implicity have anything to do with authority or hierarchy. So, in my mind, if we’re being true to the meaning of the word “complement,” any leadership structure should have both men AND women, since any other kind of leadership structure would be incomplete / missing half of itself. But that’s not the type of leadership structure Mr. Burk would subscribe to.
But, yeah, different people have different definitions. Which doesn’t help. I thought Sandra Glahn had a helpful graphic on her blog that defined 6-8 different views within the complementarian spectrum, but of course now I can’t find it.
Pfft. I love how “decades of feminist propaganda” got blamed for ruining the word patriarchy. As though millennia of subjugation and abuse of women had nothing to do with it.
IMO this points to the fundamental problem-“complementarianism” as a term, and as a theology, is a bit dishonest. It was promoted to make gender hierarchy more palatable to evangelical Christians, at a time when cultural assumptions about men’s and women’s spheres were being rigorously challenged from within the ranks. To use Beth Allison Barr’s expression, it’s just patriarchy shapeshifting again. And that unstated belief in male superiority really bleeds through in some circles.
I do know people who sincerely
believe complementarian theology and would describe it as you did theoretically-2 equal beings created to, well, complement one another. It just so happens that they complement by one gender leading and another following (or one having headship and the other submitting, or whatever). They honestly don’t believe this is hierarchical.
I’ve noticed that many of these folks I know actually seem to be functionally egalitarian (in their marriages anyway, not so much church governance). They treat one another respectfully and take seriously the commands to husbands to love their wives-thereby subverting the (unacknowledged) hierarchy! Which of course was the point back when the NT was written. What is sad to me is that we don’t have to go through the mental gymnastics required to build up the (un)hierarchy in the first place. Our society now would allow us to overtly work towards equality in a way that the first century church never could have. But instead we’re worrying over whether it’s “godly” for a woman to have a paying job, and when is an adolescent boy too old to be taught by a female Sunday school teacher.
Ah this is LONG sorry. As you can probably tell I have strong feelings on the subject!
You’re in good company!