Kassian’s ‘Complementarianism for Dummies’

Earlier this week, Mary Kassian of the Girls Gone Wise blog posted an article titled “Complementarianism For Dummies.” She begins:

Last week a reporter asked me to define “complementarianism.” She didn’t know what it meant. And that’s not entirely surprising.

“Complementarity” is a word that doesn’t appear in the Bible, but is used by people to summarize a biblical concept. It’s like the word “Trinity.” The Bible never uses the word “Trinity.” But it’s undeniable that it points to a Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Though the concept of male-female complementarity is present from Genesis through Revelation, the label “complementarian” has only been in use for about 25 years. It was coined by a group of scholars who got together to try and come up with a word to describe someone who ascribes to the historic, biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different. The need for such a label arose in response to the proposition that equality means role-interchangeability (egalitarianism)—a concept that was first forwarded and popularized in Evangelical circles in the 1970s and 80s by “Biblical Feminists.”

I’ve read several posts on the internet lately from people who misunderstand and/or misrepresent the complementarian view. I was at the meeting, 25 years ago, where the word “complementarian” was chosen. So I think I have a good grasp on the word’s definition.

In this post I want to boil it down for you. In emulation of the popular “for Dummies” series of instructional books, I’ll give you a “Complementarianism for Dummies” primer on the intended meaning of the word.

Visit the Girls Gone Wise website to read the rest.

How do you define biblical complementarity?

1. stephaniez said the following on July 5, 2012 at 7:29 pm

   

   I love this! Though at the same time, I feel this is so rarely applied correctly. But all things are possible with God.
2. AndreaElena said the following on July 6, 2012 at 12:13 pm

   

   I really like the comments of AmirLarijani and his wife in the thread of this Boundless blog post: <a href="http://www.boundlessline.org/2012/06/one-of-the-boys/comments/page/1/#comments""One of the Boys" — see comments 76, 79, 86, 88, 113, 118, 125, and 128 by Amir; 98 and 115, by his wife. (Comments after 100 are on a second page.)

   They depict complementarian marriage as I view it… and hope to live it, should that day come for me.
3. AndreaElena said the following on July 6, 2012 at 12:13 pm

   

   Dang… would one of the admins fix that HTML for me? Thanks!
4. JackieEE said the following on July 6, 2012 at 5:18 pm

   

   Thanks for mentioning the Boundless blog with the specific comments, AndreaElena — it is so great to have real-life examples showing us God’s truth applied.
5. syntyche said the following on July 10, 2012 at 10:57 am

   

   My definition? I’m still trying to figure out hers! :-p But I loved the dummy format, and liked how she wanted to break down what it was to its ideological bones. Left me with more questions than answers, since it seems her foundational definition is possibly very different from how I understood it. Here are the questions I had, and really I’ll eschew what she says it isn’t, and focus on what she says it is (basically a breakdowm of #5):

   Essentially, a complementarian is a person who believes that God created male and female to reflect complementary truths about Jesus. That’s the bottom-line meaning of the word.

   Ok, but that doesn’t quite make sense to me. I could see if she said the reflection of God; it’s right there in Genesis, as she refers to in her 1st point. And it would make sense to, since God has this amorphous quality. When Moses asked of His name, He replied “I AM who I AM.” Jesus has that too, being that in the beginning He was with God, and God. But then He became corporeal. So I’m wondering what complementary truths about Jesus needs to be shown through gender that He could not have shared while he was on this earth, or that can’t now be shared through the Holy Spirit?

   Complementarians believe that males were designed to shine the spotlight on Christ’s relationship to the church (and the LORD God’s relationship to Christ) in a way that females cannot, and that females were designed to shine the spotlight on the Church’s relationship to Christ (and Christ’s relationship to the LORD God) in a way that males cannot.

   Jesus, and others, definitely used those relationships to highlight the truths he wanted to reveal about His relationship with the church. But was that really factored into their creation? To put it another way, did Jesus (since everything was created through Him) create sheep, and create shepherding in order to, centuries later, describe the relationship between He and those who would believe in Him? Or were there a variety of reasons why sheep were created, shepherding became dominant, and He simply used an analogy that was readily understood by those who congregated to hear him? There is a slight difference there.

   Also, to say that a particular gender better illuminates a truth, I could see. But to say that either gender cannot reflect a truth of Christ seems to short-change the gospel, since there are a variety of scenarios in which the gospel is shared, and you may not have the other gender present to reflect the things that can only be shown by it.

   And, what I felt was missing from this definition was the how. If that is true, that women highlight aspects of Christ that men cannot, and vice versa, then what are those things, and how does the designated gender do it? How does the other gender not represent it? If misrepresentation occurs, I venture its due to the specifics of how this would play out. But since this is in dummy format, maybe that is for chapter 2?

   So in speaking of specifics, thanks AndreaElena for the reference to the other thread! Informative, surely. Me personally, I had a couple misgivings. His approach seems quite militaristic. And while that works in different environments like…wait for it… the military! (:-D ), but other places as well, it may not work well in other arenas. As I was just doing some cyber wandering, I came across a woman who was a quaker, who said their governing body worked in communal agreement – the antithesis of military hierarchy; and it works for them.

   The other thing, which kind of bleeds from the first, is that he seemed to go from talking about complementarianism, and how it works between him and his wife, to egalitarianism and why it doesn’t work; and that seemed too assumptive. Quick example. He wrote: “If I’m an “egalitarian” lieutenant–and allow my sergeants to make their own calls all the time because I disregard my leadership role and delegate all decisions to them–I will be liked but not respected.” Who’s to say they would? I’m sure some would, but some may not, or have an entirely different way of thinking. Also, who’s to say that the reason for the delegation is because the LT is shirking his leadership responsibilities? Just as Kassian wanted to clarify what complemetarianism is, I think in like fashion, it should be the egalitarian who describes how that effects, or doesn’t, his leadership. Even so, I’m dittoing JackieEE: thanks for giving us real world examples to look at against the theory of the post. And I hope you get to walk it out sooner than later.

   Thanks!