Examining The Expressions Of Egalitarian And Complementarian Views Of Gender In The Local Church

Examining the Expressions of Egalitarian and Complementarian Views of Gender in the Local Church David Ketter February 2009

I. Introduction

While society continues to explore the postmodern questions about gender and

sex identity and roles, the Church is engaged in what is, at best, a dialogue and what can be, at worst, a divisive controversy over roles. It is well-known that the egalitarian position takes the “giftedness-not-gender” approach to understanding feminine roles and their perceptions in the local church. By contrast, complementarianism, when it is not demonized, has taken for its stance that both giftedness and gender (and, some would add, grace) determine feminine roles in the life of the local church.

As it stands, however, few have undertaken to display and understand the

dialogue and explore how each of these views can express itself in the context of the local church. Like any issue of church polity, this is not simply a matter of doctrine or opinion, but of functional and Scriptural significance in everyday workings of local congregations. By exploring these “expressions” it is to be hoped that a helpful understanding of the differences and their impact can be reached so that Christians pastors and congregations alike - can respond redemptively in the midst of conflict. II. Definitions of Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Gender

At the most basic level of this conflict is definition. Often popular egalitarian and

complementarian literature (in contrast to the theological and scholarly literature) has tended toward assuming definitions or caricaturing “the other side” with a straw man (i.e., Bilezikianʼs description of complementarians as “the hierarchical approach” [2008, 2]). The need arises, then, to ensure that we have properly defined each position, as well as a definition of gender, to establish a lens and foundation with which to understand the conflict and build a redemptive locus of reconciliation.



Because of the biases of the literature currently available, I have determined to

define these terms to the best of my ability, without appeal to the said literature. It should be noted that these definitions are given under the assumption that each view is attempting, as far as is possible, to represent “the Biblical approach to gender”. While this also has implications for the nature of marriage, family life and other arenas, our primary concern is with the local church and, our definitions will be primarily concerned with that.

To begin with, egalitarianism is the perspective or conviction that there is an

equality of calling and role in the local church, marriage, and other institutions, such that masculine and feminine roles are essentially the same. From an egalitarian approach, then, men and women alike can serve as pastors, elders, deacons, ministry directors/ coordinators, et al., as the qualification is not based on gender, but on calling and gifting.

In contrast, complementarianism is the perspective or conviction that there is an

equality of calling in the local church, marriage and other institutions, characterized by distinct masculine and feminine roles. The complementarian, in other words, affirms the necessity and goodness of masculine and feminine participation in ministry while seeking to understand these roles and ministries in a way that lauds difference in gender for the greater good of the local church.

Gender, for the purposes of this paper, will be defined as the quality of being

masculine or feminine. The 1828 edition of Websterʼs American Dictionary of the English language defines gender as “properly, kind; sort”. Masculinity and femininity are determined, in part, by physiological characteristics. Being male and female, however,

does not determine whether behavior and/or inclinations are masculine and feminine. Therefore, another element of gender is an internal quality which, within the individual, complements the physiological characteristics. Thus, gender can be defined as the expression of complementary characteristics, both physiological and internal, in either the masculine or the feminine variety. III. Self-Expressions: How Each View Defines Itself

Although we have defined, for our purposes, the meanings of egalitarianism,

complementarianism, and gender and while this is a crucial step as we begin to seek reconciliation in the area of gender roles in the local church, we cannot begin the work of reconciliation until we have addressed each viewʼs self-understanding and selfperception. More important, perhaps, than an outsiderʼs view of any group is perhaps their own understanding of who they are and what they are about.

In the scope of egalitarian literature, very few pieces seem to be concerned with

defining who they are. Fundamentally, it seems, they are concerned with responding to their opponents: complementarians. Now, this is perhaps a significant observation in itself, but let us not neglect what answers that egalitarians have offered for themselves. Kevin Giles, an Anglican vicar in Australia, says by way of describing egalitarianism in a scenario that, Egalitarians consistently argue that the Bible treats the issues of slavery and the subordination of women in much the same way. The writers of the Bible - as men living in cultures that accepted the institution of slavery and subordination of women as unquestioned facts of life - depict both social realities as if they are agreeable to God. Neither are ever condemned or specifically questioned in Scripture. Given another cultural context, egalitarian evangelicals argue, slavery and the subordination of women are to be repudiated because, at a primary, theological level, the Bible depicts every human as being of equal worth and dignity, never prescribing some social roles to men and others to women. (Giles, 2002, 7)



In other words, egalitarians believe themselves to be the interpreters of

Scriptureʼs true trajectory. They perceive themselves to be the defenders of Godʼs “original intent” for revelation: that the people of God would progressively move toward the liberation and equality of all humans, regardless of status and gender. In this sense, then, the egalitarian position is one that thinks in a trajectory of progressive redemption.

Yet, not so surprisingly, the complementarians also see themselves as thinking in

the trajectory of progressive redemption. John Piper states that, God has not place in us an all-pervasive and all-conditioning dimension of personhood and then hidden the meaning of our identity from us. He has shown us in Scripture the beauty of manhood and womanhood in complementary harmony. He has shown us the distortions and even the horrors that sin has made of fallen manhood and womanhood. And he has shown us the way of redemption and healing through Jesus Christ. [...] Our understanding is that the Bible reveals the nature of masculinity and femininity by describing diverse responsibilities for man and woman while rooting these differing responsibilities in creation, not convention. (Piper, 1991, 35)

Complementarians, then, see themselves as guardians of a biblical theology of

gender. By biblical theology, however, I am referring to the discipline of theology concerned with the progressive development of redemption in all its various arenas throughout the narrative of Scripture. Not only are men and women equal in value, being, and before God, but they are entrusted with distinct, diverse roles that complete and nourish the creational purpose of God and, even though they are imperfectly fulfilled, can find their fulness and healing in the work of Jesus Christ.

What is significant about the self-perceptions of each view, interestingly enough,

is they both understand themselves to be defenders or guardians against some encroaching theology or opposition that, ultimately, is violating the will of God and in dissent from the intent of the Scriptures. Neither side has understood itself as the

proactive interpreter of Scripture or taking the offensive in a contest of theology and application. This, then, is a significant factor in how they perceive each other. IV. Apologetics: How Each View Defines the Other

The essential claim of egalitarianism (or “evangelical feminisim”, as it is often

called in comeplementarian literature) is not disputed by complementarian scholars and writers. Complementarians acknowledge fully the argument of egalitarians and, rather, question its grounding in the Scriptures - particularly how that understanding of Scripture can be compatible with doctrines pertaining the sufficiency and infallibility of Scripture in every area of life. One text describes egalitarianism as a “step on the path toward [theological, heretical] liberalism” (Grudem, 2006, 42, 48, et alia.).

In responses that are both exegetical and excoriating, egalitarian interpretations

have been described as “eccentric” (Ortlund, 1991, 103), bearing “refusal to submit to the authority of Scripture at all” (Grudem, 1991, 198). The curious reality of complementariansʼ perceptions of egalitarianism is that, rather than characterizing its proponents anywhere in their arguments, they portray the egalitarian arguments and interpretations as contrary to Scripture, dangerous, or questionable. In the material surveyed, there was no assault on persons of egalitarian persuasion (although, it should be noted, that it is likely such assaults would exist in popular literature with complementarian sympathies).

This picture, however, is precisely what is maintained of egalitarian perception of

complementarianism. S. Gallagher, in her history of the movement from an egalitarian perspective says that “conservatives continued to portray the movement as undermining both biblical truth and the traditional family” (2004, 226). Additionally, they are called

“hierarchicalists” (Giles, 2002, 7) or some form thereof (Bilezikian, 2008, 7; Gallagher, 2004, 215), as well as the defenders of patriarchy (Gallagher, 2004; Giles, 2002).

In fairness, egalitarians will do their own exegesis and interpretation of the text

and provide ample material to work with. However, they rarely, in the corpus of literature surveyed, respond or counter the exegetical work put forward by complementarians. Complementarian individuals or groups (such as the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) are generally given a label of some sort (“hierarchical” or “patriarchal”) and, because of that label, their argument is dismissed, making room for the egalitarian exegesis.

Thus, in the realm of apologetics, there arises the first difference in perceptions.

Where complementarians see the opposition as an “ism” or ideology, egalitarians typically perceive a particular set of individuals who are seeking to perpetuate an unjust patriarchy in the name of Biblical interpretation. It is not so simple, however, to draw a conclusion from this difference. While one could interpret this reality as being indicative of a lack of sound logic in the egalitarian perspective, it could also be interpreted as the appeal of the oppressed egalitarians against a group who is aiding the oppressor. Yet, the view of the present can only be limited evidence. Only when we begin to understand their respective visions for the local church in the years to come can we decide which it is. V. Vision-Casting: What Each View Envisions in the Church

While the casual observer might, justifiably, expect that the vision of each view

for the Church is that their own particular perspective would dominate and become part of its orthodoxy, While this may be something of the goal, it would be irresponsible for

any student of the controversy to presume that such is the ultimate goal. In fact, for each side there is a tangible, effectual end besides the acceptance and consensus in their favor. These are determinative for the possibility and process of redemptive response to the controversy as we begin to develop it.

In a review of Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy,

edited by R. Pierce, R. Groothuis, and G. Fee - an egalitarian anthology of articles covering the scope and depth of issues at stake in the controversy - Ruth Gouldbourne, herself an egalitarian, states that, I have wondered if it is possible to be evangelical and egalitarian. I believe it is. But if our definition of what evangelical means is something pre-decided then perhaps our evangelical identity needs closer examination. By taking the biblical material so seriously, and dealing with it so carefully, the writers have challenged the notion that simply to attach the label evangelical to a position means that by definition it is Scripturally accurate. (Gouldbourne, 2006, 82-83)

In short, Gouldbourn, prompted by what she felt was an excellent publication and

exploration of the exegetical arguments for egalitarianism, is looking for the reevaluation of evangelicalism itself. Egalitarianism is not merely a call for adjustment in practice or a cry for justice for churched women, then, but envisions itself as a catalyst for the entire evangelical world to reconsider its orthodoxy and identity in light of the Scriptures. For them, itʼs about redefining a dying evangelicalism.

Interestingly enough, an egalitarian review of W. Grudemʼs Evangelical Feminism

and Biblical Truth: an analysis of 118 disputed questions informs us of the complementarian vision: Grudem sees the issue of male and female roles as a key one for today's church. Failure to understand this issue as Grudem does and act accordingly, will result in a drift to heresy and ultimately a society that is characterised by no gender differences. In his concluding chapters Grudem identifies denominations that have already embarked on this road by ordaining women as ministers and

elders. It is of crucial importance to study the scriptures and live according to the guidance. (Fulton, 2006, 71)

What Fulton states, then, is the complementarian vision is a church that is

safeguarded from heresy and false teaching, devoted to Biblical orthodoxy, and seeking to live faithfully to the Gospel theyʼve received. So, like egalitarianism, complementarianism seeks to call the evangelical church to consider and be introspective. Unlike egalitarianism, however, the complementarian view is crying for an evaluation of where evangelicals stand in relation to Christ and the saving truth of the Scriptures. At the end of the day, for complementarians, itʼs not about men and women, but about the Gospel.

Here, then, we have a subtle contrast. Complementarians envision a change of

people in submission to the Scriptures that they may more accurately live out, teach, and spread the Gospel. The question is not fundamentally about the trappings and practices of orthodoxy, but about how it will lead to the compromise of orthodoxy. Egalitarians, on the other hand, envision a change of the trappings and practices of the orthodox, but itself having no goal or effect for the Gospel. Here, then, we begin to observe why each view fails to truly engage the other: they are aiming at two different realms - one visible, one invisible. VI. Answering the Question: Is It a Worthwhile Debate?

We have seen that while both define themselves as a defense of orthodoxy

against their opposition. However, the way they define that opposition is at two different levels. Where complementarians see the opposition as a set of beliefs, egalitarians see their opposition as a group of people who happen to hold a certain set of beliefs. This, in turn, impacts their respective visions for the local church as egalitarians are intent on

defining the beliefs of evangelicals and comlementarians set on calling people back to a universal submission to doctrine. With such difference in goals and perceptions, one might question whether this conflict should continue to be engaged by Christians at all levels - congregations, pastors, theologians, and scholars. Two participants in this conversation, Wade Burleson and Kevin Higham, have presented their theses in this discussion to bring reconciliation to these groups.

As a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention, Wade Burleson has set himself

on a mission to promote and practice justice regarding gender roles in the local churches, particularly those of Southern Baptist convictions. In a remarkable interview that effectively removes him in much of the controversy, Burleson steps aside from the issue of pastoral leadership and focuses on the issue of justice in those areas where there is, for him, clearly no call for distinction of service to the church in gender: seminary professorships, administrators of ministries, missionaries, and church staffers (Burleson, 2008).

Key to Burlesonʼs thesis are two fundamental claims: (1) regardless of whether

one is egalitarian or complementarian, it is owed to women that churches have not always done justice in treating them in a manner worthy of Christ; (2) in both views, there is a broad need for humility and self-examination necessary if we are to move forward. Only when we have these, says Burleson, can we continue the discussion of womenʼs roles in the local church, and other arenas (Burleson, 2008, 12).

Interestingly enough, Kevin Highamʼs thesis parallels these demands, but takes

them one step forward in application. Working from within a complementary framework, Higham gives a call for evangelicals to accept that women have leadership giftings and

those do not, by necessity, demand a role of authority such as that of pastor/elder. He outlines the steps as follows: First, we need to accept it [womenʼs leadership gifting] and not be afraid of it. [...] Whether that gift of leadership is used within the church or within secular society, the church leadership should help develop and grow the gift. [...] Secondly we should not ignore it. Ignoring it will only lead to discouraged women. [...] Thirdly we liberate them by treating them as equals with dignity and love, also ensuring that a woman is “planted” within the house of God. [...] Finally, we need to release them from fear of overstepping the mark and work with them on their leadership gifting within the defined limits of the environment it is to be engaged within. [...] It is the leaderʼs responsibility to help release women from fear and into the security found in Christ. (Higham, 2003, 91).

In other words, say Burleson and Higham, we must engage this conversation.

For the sake of the Church, both men and women, there must be resolution - an end of conflict and a deliverance from distortion of Scripture and oppression of believers on any extreme. And, so, for both egalitarians and complementarians, we find the utter need to move forward and seek reconciliation in the midst of this controversy. VII. Application and Conclusion: Moving Beyond Expressions and Divisions

There is no doubt as to the nature and intensity of this controversy. While much

of the popular literature has only been briefly alluded to in this examination, it is I telling that even in the midst of scholarly or educated literature from egalitarians and complementarians there exists a tension and, in some cases, hostility. If even among those who are sophisticated and seeking to instruct, rather than inflame, there can be such conflict, how much more so for those who are involved purely out of their feelings or loyalties to their own traditions!

We are left then with the question of where this conversation must go. There is a

broad range of responses that could be given. Things could continue as they are, and hurt will expand on either side. We could part ways, creating an even more starkly

divided evangelicalism. Neither of these is remarkably appealing and would, I think, dishonor the call of Jesus and his redemptive work on behalf of us as the people of God. Rather than the status quo, we ought to distance ourselves from division and seek reconciliation.

How can this be done? Moving in a similar trajectory as Higham, my argument

would be that the local churches should adopt a complementarian framework with an egalitarian attitude. To clarify, our reconciliation can be found in the recognition of gender equality and difference. Men and women, being equal in person, in standing before God, and in giftedness, bear roles in submission to Christ that are equal, primarily shared with some separation for each gender to lead according to their gifting and calling. Thus, it is primarily for men to serve as elders - the oversight of the local church - as it is primarily for women to serve as leaders in character.

Now, lest there be any confusion, neither position is essentially inferior to the

other. Elders, according to the pastoral epistles of Paul, are given to serve all believers, in a position that is lower than any other in the course of this worldʼs workings. Leaders of character, too, are servants and models for life in Christ. Where elders present the whole counsel of God, leaders present the whole character of God - and these are far from being strictly segregated (since the primary qualifications of eldership deal with character and the primary test of character is sound doctrine). Thus, we have a complementarian framework. Where we begin to have an egalitarian attitude is in recognizing, affirming, and developing leadership in women, as well as men. Neither gender has an inferior ministry or an inferior calling, but both are gloriously contributing to the glory of God and the building up of the Church.



Concluding then, I would remind us all of the words of the apostle Paul in his

epistle to the Ephesians: I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. [...] And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. (Eph. 5:1-7, 11-13 English Standard Version)

Bibliography Bilezikian, G. (2008, Summer 2008). Dealing with Decisional DEADLOCKS. Mutuality, 15(2), 7-9. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database. Burleson, W. (2008, Summer 2008). Outward Love, Inward Humility. Mutuality, 15(2), 10-12. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database. Fulton, K., Gouldbourne, R., & James, S. (2006, January). Biblical truth and biblical equality: a review article on two recent books from IVP on evangelical feminism and biblical manhood and womanhood. Evangelical Quarterly, 78(1), 65-84. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database. Gallagher, S. (2004, Fall 2004). The Marginalization Of Evangelical Feminism. Sociology of Religion, 65(3), 215-237. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database. Giles, K. (2002). Trinity and Subordinationism: the Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Grudem, W. A. (2006). Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. Higham, K. (2003, September). Questioning the Question! Evangel, 21(3), 89-92. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database. Piper, J. & Grudem, W. A. (Eds.) (1991). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. Piper, J. (1990). Whatʼs the Difference? Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. Webster, N. (1828). American Dictionary of the English Language. Chesapeake, VA: Foundation for American Christian Education; Facsimile of Fi Edition.