I read this post out loud to my husband. We’re passionate about partnership and mutuality in marriage, and you’ve captured the nuances of the harm of complementarian teachings in your writing. Jumping out of my seat with appreciation for the clarity of this essay.
When we ditched the complementarian model for a true partnership, my husband said he felt a weight lifted. The need to always be right and always be the one to make decisions was a load he was not created to bear. We are so much closer now.
This is beautiful -- and a message more couples (perhaps men, especially) need to hear. Hierarchy within marriage doesn't promote unity, but does quite the opposite.
I agree that the "need to always be right and always be the one to make decisions" would be an unnecessarily burdensome load for any husband (or any leader, for that matter) to bear. As a complementarian myself, I would assert that the "always right/always make decisions" concept is foreign to how my wife and I understand and experience complementarianism. I would argue that such a notion is an abuse of the complementarian model (rather than an inherent component of it). But if I understand you correctly, such a notion was an inherent component in your former circles--as in, it was actively promoted and taught that the husband was always right, and that he always needed to make all decisions for the family?
I realize you aren’t replying to me, but if you’ll allow me to respond, I’m happy to share my experience. If not, feel free to ignore my comment :)
I’ve experienced a spectrum within the complementarian model. Some are downright abusive. Some are benevolent. And some a mix in the middle. All versions taught me the husband shouldered the responsibility for every decision made (good and bad), even if he deferred to his wife’s preference and for the direction the children chosen to live, even if they renounced from the faith.
Is this a shared experience for you?
That kind of pressure (being held accountable for the negative actions of another person) is something I don’t see in scripture, though we can’t always control the blowback of consequences to those around us. Rather, personal accountability for one’s own choices is what we see—and that applies for both men and women.
It’s (benevolent hierarchy) send a subtle message but I see the amplification of it doing a lot of harm in the church to both men and women.
Hi, Christi. Thanks for commenting! Yes, I too have experienced a spectrum within the complementarian model, so we do have that in common.
To help me better understand your position on personal vs. corporate responsibility, let me ask you this: in cases of leadership, would you believe that there are situations where a leader can/should be held responsible for the actions of those under his or her authority?
Great question! I just finished reading A Church Called Tov which touches on this.
I believe there is room for nuance. In general, if an action was taken without consulting the leader or the leader having delegated said action, then the leader is responsible for address that action appropriately. For example, if someone under the leader wrongs another and the leader is made aware, the leader is responsible for holding the person accountable. If in that situation, the leader dismisses the wrong, invalidates the offended party, possibly even maligning their character, the leader has now become culpable of the wrong and amplified the injustice. However, if the leader addresses the wrong in a just and godly fashion, then the leader has done as they should and shouldn’t be punished for the wrong done. It’s not always how we say it play out in history (in and outside of scripture). There are times where a leader poorly sets up a delegate for failure. In this case, while on the surface it appears to be the delegate’s failure, the reality is that the leader is the one who wronged the delegate.
Getting back to the OP…how does it apply to marriage or the church? I believe it would only apply in places where a clear hierarchy is established—arguably, I see church and marriage commissioned as non-hierarchal, thus the items above would be mute for a church operating in said model. If a church is operating in a hierarchal manner, I understand they may use an institutional or corporate approach like I outline above—but that doesn’t mean the underlying structure is biblical.
I apologize for the delayed response, Christi. I appreciate you explaining your understanding of how leadership responsibility works, as it helps me better see where you’re coming from.
Generally speaking, I agree that there is room for nuance on the topic. At the same time, it does appear that we differ on how we view personal responsibility vs. corporate responsibility. Because we live in a hyper-individualistic culture, I think it’s easy to overlook the fact that God sometimes holds one person (or a group of people) responsible for the actions of another person (or another group of people). For my part, I see Scripture teach/demonstrate the reality of individual responsibility, community responsibility, generational responsibility, and representative responsibility (which I flesh out in this piece: https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/can-god-hold-you-accountable-for-another-persons-actions.html).
For the purpose of our discussion here, I’ll point to just one example: the first marriage in Scripture. Even though the serpent tempted Eve (Genesis 3:1-5), and even though she sinned before Adam did (v. 6), the Bible lays the responsibility for humanity’s fall on the shoulders of Adam. This is implicit in Genesis 3:9 (where God addresses Adam first as the one with the greatest responsibility), but it is made explicit in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 15 tells us, not that death came through a woman, but rather that “death came through a man” (v. 21), and that “in Adam all die” (v. 22). Similarly, Romans 5 teaches that “one trespass [i.e., Adam’s] resulted in condemnation for all people” (v. 18), and “through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] the many were made sinners” (v. 19).
As you are likely aware, the passages above teach what theologians refer to as federal headship. I would be interested to hear the interpretation of federal headship from an egalitarian’s perspective.
I’ll review your article at a later time. Thank you for sharing.
When I look at Genesis, I see the over/under struggle introduced as a part of the curse, not beforehand. In the same way that we address pain in child birth and manual labor to be done “smarter, not harder”, so is the same with the rest of the curse when it comes to the impulse and desire to control another—it is descriptive not prescriptive. (I loved when Beth Allison Barr pointed out that the curse has two parallels that woman will not be in conflict with her source (Adam since she materially was made from him) and Adam his (since he was materially made from the ground). Hebrew loves to draw parallels and she was the first I heard articulate it that way and it seems in line with the Hebrew style we observe in other places). This descriptive view is shared by other theologians as well and while I grew up being taught the prescriptive position, I see Jesus and the apostles consistently leveling the field—last are first, first are last, proud will be humbled, humble will be lifted up, the rich and poor sit together, restoring us to the initial order of creation—equals in every way. Complementary imaging God without hierarchy.
Scripture leaves a lot to the imagination about those early days and we don’t have a lot of clarity around how Eve was informed of the command to not eat from that tree. Was it relayed through Adam? Did God tell her directly and then she or Adam added the boundary about not touching it? Did God ask Adam first because he was told first? Or because he saw that Adam already blamed Eve and God in his heart, thus adding another layer of sin to the mix, against God and against Eve as well, essentially tripling his offense? We simply don’t know and a lot is left to the imagination.
Is the New Testament explicit on this? (Edited:) Eve is not [explicitly] blamed in the New Testament. Is it possible that curse was applied to all mankind, not because Adam was head over Eve but simply because on the timeline he was made first and Eve was literally bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, being fashioned out of him like he was out of the dirt? Just food for thought. I’d need to dig into resources about the Greek in those verses further to draw any strong explicit opinions (maybe you review those in your article).
Thank you for engaging respectfully and kindly on this.
I grew up with some pretty harsh worm theology, so absolutely NO ONE was worthy of anything. When I got married and began attending an SBC church, that’s when I first heard of the “creation order” concept. I was newly in a relationship with Jesus and giggled to myself that they must think birds are in authority because they were created before land animals and humans. I had no idea at the time how foundational complementarianism was to faith in the SBC. I should have turned and run, but it seemed so absurd that they couldn’t possibly give it much weight.
I could have written this myself, except I was reading Elisabeth Elliot instead of Doug Wilson. Thank you for articulating so well what wifely submission does to a woman over time. I’m so thankful my husband has been on board with becoming equal partners. It’s hard to relearn though!
Oh goodness, yes, Elisabeth Elliot is another unfortunate example. You're right, it's hard to relearn, but so worth it for the sake of a closer, happier marriage!
I relate to you story so much. I never read Doug Wilson (thank God) but many, many other Christian marriage books had the exact same effect. I'm so thankful for Sheila and the many others who are taking up this important fight.
Wonderful Joy! I have loved that book. For years I have done pre-marital counseling and would intentionally choose John Gottman books because I felt most Christian ones did exactly what you share. They claimed one thing but then asked another. Now I’m excited to use The Marriage You Want for working with couples.
And I had to say, this sentence you wrote, “The problem is how mainstream evangelical speakers and teachers conveyed the same messages — of male dominance and “headship,” female submission and insignificance — only in softer, more marketable language.”
So good. So true too. The terms have tried to obfuscate the real dynamics. A form of double-speak. I describe it as many complementarians want their cake and to eat it too. You just can’t though.
As a former Mormon (LDS) we were taught the same complementarianism, but with more subtlety. It was the same, of course you’re equal, but women are able to bear children and it’s so sacred we had to give men this special power called the priesthood, which women must always defer to no matter what. Separate but equal; Women on their special pedestal, men still above them in final say and power.
Hi, Joy. I was introduced to your writing through your piece "Avoiding women will not help you avoid sin." You make a lot of good points in that piece, and I agree that the Billy Graham Rule, as well-intentioned as it may be, has the opposite of its intended effect: instead of honoring and valuing women, it either creates or perpetuates a tendency to demean and objectify women.
My wife and I have also benefitted from reading Sheila Wray Gregoire (as you mention in this piece). Even though we identify as complementarians, we believe Gregoire is doing the church a great service in critiquing some dangerous and unscriptural assumptions Evangelicals have about the nature and purpose of sex.
To better understand your position on headship and submission, I wanted to ask a couple follow-up questions. First, how would you apply Ephesians 5:22 to the wife's role in marriage, and how would you apply Ephesians 5:23 to the husband's role in marriage?
(And just to make sure I'm not giving the appearance of any sleight-of-hand: I'm aware that both verses are preceded by Ephesians 5:21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." The question for all of us isn't which verse is "correct," or how one verse negates the other, but how the entire passage works together.)
Second, in a case where a husband and a wife have to make a decision between two possible options (say, the husband is unemployed and is weighing the only two job offers he has before him), if they come to a standstill and can't agree, what do you believe the course of action should be?
I hope it goes without saying, but I'm not trying to push you into a corner or achieve some kind of "gotcha" moment; I just wanted to better understand how you would translate Scriptural principles into Scripturally-informed practices.
I read this post out loud to my husband. We’re passionate about partnership and mutuality in marriage, and you’ve captured the nuances of the harm of complementarian teachings in your writing. Jumping out of my seat with appreciation for the clarity of this essay.
Thanks so much! I’m really glad it resonated.
When we ditched the complementarian model for a true partnership, my husband said he felt a weight lifted. The need to always be right and always be the one to make decisions was a load he was not created to bear. We are so much closer now.
This is beautiful -- and a message more couples (perhaps men, especially) need to hear. Hierarchy within marriage doesn't promote unity, but does quite the opposite.
This is absolutely true. First and foremost, patriarchy hurts women. But it hurts men too. It’s poison, even for the ones who like the taste.
I agree that the "need to always be right and always be the one to make decisions" would be an unnecessarily burdensome load for any husband (or any leader, for that matter) to bear. As a complementarian myself, I would assert that the "always right/always make decisions" concept is foreign to how my wife and I understand and experience complementarianism. I would argue that such a notion is an abuse of the complementarian model (rather than an inherent component of it). But if I understand you correctly, such a notion was an inherent component in your former circles--as in, it was actively promoted and taught that the husband was always right, and that he always needed to make all decisions for the family?
I realize you aren’t replying to me, but if you’ll allow me to respond, I’m happy to share my experience. If not, feel free to ignore my comment :)
I’ve experienced a spectrum within the complementarian model. Some are downright abusive. Some are benevolent. And some a mix in the middle. All versions taught me the husband shouldered the responsibility for every decision made (good and bad), even if he deferred to his wife’s preference and for the direction the children chosen to live, even if they renounced from the faith.
Is this a shared experience for you?
That kind of pressure (being held accountable for the negative actions of another person) is something I don’t see in scripture, though we can’t always control the blowback of consequences to those around us. Rather, personal accountability for one’s own choices is what we see—and that applies for both men and women.
It’s (benevolent hierarchy) send a subtle message but I see the amplification of it doing a lot of harm in the church to both men and women.
Hi, Christi. Thanks for commenting! Yes, I too have experienced a spectrum within the complementarian model, so we do have that in common.
To help me better understand your position on personal vs. corporate responsibility, let me ask you this: in cases of leadership, would you believe that there are situations where a leader can/should be held responsible for the actions of those under his or her authority?
Great question! I just finished reading A Church Called Tov which touches on this.
I believe there is room for nuance. In general, if an action was taken without consulting the leader or the leader having delegated said action, then the leader is responsible for address that action appropriately. For example, if someone under the leader wrongs another and the leader is made aware, the leader is responsible for holding the person accountable. If in that situation, the leader dismisses the wrong, invalidates the offended party, possibly even maligning their character, the leader has now become culpable of the wrong and amplified the injustice. However, if the leader addresses the wrong in a just and godly fashion, then the leader has done as they should and shouldn’t be punished for the wrong done. It’s not always how we say it play out in history (in and outside of scripture). There are times where a leader poorly sets up a delegate for failure. In this case, while on the surface it appears to be the delegate’s failure, the reality is that the leader is the one who wronged the delegate.
Getting back to the OP…how does it apply to marriage or the church? I believe it would only apply in places where a clear hierarchy is established—arguably, I see church and marriage commissioned as non-hierarchal, thus the items above would be mute for a church operating in said model. If a church is operating in a hierarchal manner, I understand they may use an institutional or corporate approach like I outline above—but that doesn’t mean the underlying structure is biblical.
I apologize for the delayed response, Christi. I appreciate you explaining your understanding of how leadership responsibility works, as it helps me better see where you’re coming from.
Generally speaking, I agree that there is room for nuance on the topic. At the same time, it does appear that we differ on how we view personal responsibility vs. corporate responsibility. Because we live in a hyper-individualistic culture, I think it’s easy to overlook the fact that God sometimes holds one person (or a group of people) responsible for the actions of another person (or another group of people). For my part, I see Scripture teach/demonstrate the reality of individual responsibility, community responsibility, generational responsibility, and representative responsibility (which I flesh out in this piece: https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/can-god-hold-you-accountable-for-another-persons-actions.html).
For the purpose of our discussion here, I’ll point to just one example: the first marriage in Scripture. Even though the serpent tempted Eve (Genesis 3:1-5), and even though she sinned before Adam did (v. 6), the Bible lays the responsibility for humanity’s fall on the shoulders of Adam. This is implicit in Genesis 3:9 (where God addresses Adam first as the one with the greatest responsibility), but it is made explicit in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 15 tells us, not that death came through a woman, but rather that “death came through a man” (v. 21), and that “in Adam all die” (v. 22). Similarly, Romans 5 teaches that “one trespass [i.e., Adam’s] resulted in condemnation for all people” (v. 18), and “through the disobedience of the one man [Adam] the many were made sinners” (v. 19).
As you are likely aware, the passages above teach what theologians refer to as federal headship. I would be interested to hear the interpretation of federal headship from an egalitarian’s perspective.
As an initial resource for you, here is one egalitarian’s evaluation of Romans 5: https://pbpayne.com/does-romans-5-teach-adams-federal-headship-implying-the-authority-of-a-husband-over-his-wife/ I think you’ll find the dialogue in the comment section between PBP and Randy vigorous and respectful.
I’m still digging into this, but wanted to provide more than just questions for you to ponder. Appreciate your curiosity.
I’ll review your article at a later time. Thank you for sharing.
When I look at Genesis, I see the over/under struggle introduced as a part of the curse, not beforehand. In the same way that we address pain in child birth and manual labor to be done “smarter, not harder”, so is the same with the rest of the curse when it comes to the impulse and desire to control another—it is descriptive not prescriptive. (I loved when Beth Allison Barr pointed out that the curse has two parallels that woman will not be in conflict with her source (Adam since she materially was made from him) and Adam his (since he was materially made from the ground). Hebrew loves to draw parallels and she was the first I heard articulate it that way and it seems in line with the Hebrew style we observe in other places). This descriptive view is shared by other theologians as well and while I grew up being taught the prescriptive position, I see Jesus and the apostles consistently leveling the field—last are first, first are last, proud will be humbled, humble will be lifted up, the rich and poor sit together, restoring us to the initial order of creation—equals in every way. Complementary imaging God without hierarchy.
Scripture leaves a lot to the imagination about those early days and we don’t have a lot of clarity around how Eve was informed of the command to not eat from that tree. Was it relayed through Adam? Did God tell her directly and then she or Adam added the boundary about not touching it? Did God ask Adam first because he was told first? Or because he saw that Adam already blamed Eve and God in his heart, thus adding another layer of sin to the mix, against God and against Eve as well, essentially tripling his offense? We simply don’t know and a lot is left to the imagination.
Is the New Testament explicit on this? (Edited:) Eve is not [explicitly] blamed in the New Testament. Is it possible that curse was applied to all mankind, not because Adam was head over Eve but simply because on the timeline he was made first and Eve was literally bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, being fashioned out of him like he was out of the dirt? Just food for thought. I’d need to dig into resources about the Greek in those verses further to draw any strong explicit opinions (maybe you review those in your article).
Thank you for engaging respectfully and kindly on this.
I grew up with some pretty harsh worm theology, so absolutely NO ONE was worthy of anything. When I got married and began attending an SBC church, that’s when I first heard of the “creation order” concept. I was newly in a relationship with Jesus and giggled to myself that they must think birds are in authority because they were created before land animals and humans. I had no idea at the time how foundational complementarianism was to faith in the SBC. I should have turned and run, but it seemed so absurd that they couldn’t possibly give it much weight.
You are right - this brainwashing hurts men too. 🙏🏽💜
Yes! It leaves them isolated… being the “head” is a lonely way to do marriage 😕
I could have written this myself, except I was reading Elisabeth Elliot instead of Doug Wilson. Thank you for articulating so well what wifely submission does to a woman over time. I’m so thankful my husband has been on board with becoming equal partners. It’s hard to relearn though!
Oh goodness, yes, Elisabeth Elliot is another unfortunate example. You're right, it's hard to relearn, but so worth it for the sake of a closer, happier marriage!
I relate to you story so much. I never read Doug Wilson (thank God) but many, many other Christian marriage books had the exact same effect. I'm so thankful for Sheila and the many others who are taking up this important fight.
Yes, the basic message was the same, no matter who said it or how "nicely" they described male authority. I'm very thankful for Sheila and her work!
This is so beautiful, Joy! Thank you so much!
Really well said!
Wonderful Joy! I have loved that book. For years I have done pre-marital counseling and would intentionally choose John Gottman books because I felt most Christian ones did exactly what you share. They claimed one thing but then asked another. Now I’m excited to use The Marriage You Want for working with couples.
And I had to say, this sentence you wrote, “The problem is how mainstream evangelical speakers and teachers conveyed the same messages — of male dominance and “headship,” female submission and insignificance — only in softer, more marketable language.”
So good. So true too. The terms have tried to obfuscate the real dynamics. A form of double-speak. I describe it as many complementarians want their cake and to eat it too. You just can’t though.
Thank you for your writing!
As a former Mormon (LDS) we were taught the same complementarianism, but with more subtlety. It was the same, of course you’re equal, but women are able to bear children and it’s so sacred we had to give men this special power called the priesthood, which women must always defer to no matter what. Separate but equal; Women on their special pedestal, men still above them in final say and power.
Hi, Joy. I was introduced to your writing through your piece "Avoiding women will not help you avoid sin." You make a lot of good points in that piece, and I agree that the Billy Graham Rule, as well-intentioned as it may be, has the opposite of its intended effect: instead of honoring and valuing women, it either creates or perpetuates a tendency to demean and objectify women.
My wife and I have also benefitted from reading Sheila Wray Gregoire (as you mention in this piece). Even though we identify as complementarians, we believe Gregoire is doing the church a great service in critiquing some dangerous and unscriptural assumptions Evangelicals have about the nature and purpose of sex.
To better understand your position on headship and submission, I wanted to ask a couple follow-up questions. First, how would you apply Ephesians 5:22 to the wife's role in marriage, and how would you apply Ephesians 5:23 to the husband's role in marriage?
(And just to make sure I'm not giving the appearance of any sleight-of-hand: I'm aware that both verses are preceded by Ephesians 5:21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." The question for all of us isn't which verse is "correct," or how one verse negates the other, but how the entire passage works together.)
Second, in a case where a husband and a wife have to make a decision between two possible options (say, the husband is unemployed and is weighing the only two job offers he has before him), if they come to a standstill and can't agree, what do you believe the course of action should be?
I hope it goes without saying, but I'm not trying to push you into a corner or achieve some kind of "gotcha" moment; I just wanted to better understand how you would translate Scriptural principles into Scripturally-informed practices.