“What are we fighting for? What are we defending?” These are important, if deep, questions about complementarianism raised at an informal lunch during CMS Summer School last month. I’m not sure that we answered those questions adequately.
Gregg Allison’s recent publication, Complementarity, is a helpful contribution which answers these questions, though not in a way that we might expect.
Allison is a professor of systematic theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a college that holds to a complementarian understanding of the relationship between men and women. In this view, men and women are created in God’s image and thus have much in common. At the same time, they are gendered as male and female, equal in value, dignity and status, and yet distinct. God’s purposes for them means that these distinctions play out in their differing roles and responsibilities, particularly in the home and in the church.
Complementarity: Dignity, Difference, and Interdependence
Gregg Allison
Allison grounds his exploration of complementarity in the complex history of the relationship between women and men throughout church history, as well as the contemporary contexts of feminism, complementarianism, patriarchalism, and egalitarianism. He examines relevant passages from the Old and New Testaments before offering theological considerations of gender. Allison concludes by explaining how a robust understanding of complementarity fosters mutual flourishing for male and female image bearers.
In Allison’s circles, as also in many of our own contexts here in Australia and New Zealand, complementarian views are frequently held in contrast to egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is often portrayed as the contrasting view that distinctions and roles in the home and the church are ability-based and thus can be exercised interchangeably by men or women alike.
The book’s main audience is American evangelicals. Allison’s purpose is to show the commonalities between complementarianism and egalitarianism through the lens of the term, complementarity. His goal is to bridge the divide between evangelical Christians on both sides of this debate so that they can better express their unity in Christ. He seeks to show that while polarities exist, there is much that unites. His hope is that this book will reduce some of the factionalism within the wider church of Christ.
The question we need to return to is whether Allison succeeds in this and what implications this book might have on what we are defending and how we might do so.
What is Complementarity?
Allison views complementarity as God’s design for men and women “to fill out and mutually support one another relationally, familially, vocationally, and ecclesially for their individual and corporate flourishing” (p. 1). In this he identifies three elements: dignity, difference, and interdependence.
First, men and women are created with equal dignity as male and female divine image bearers. Second, there is significant gender differentiation between men and women that is expressed in every aspect of life. This differentiation can be seen in men and women expressing their sense of self and relational interactions with one another and with God in gendered ways. Finally, this combination of equal dignity and gendered differentiation results in an interdependence between men and women where their partnership produces a synergy that leads to human flourishing.
In his discussion on complementarity Allison seeks to be impartial. He states several times that he is not adjudicating between egalitarianism and complementarianism. He is largely successful in this.
What’s in the Book?
Allison’s entire book of 510 pages can look daunting for the average reader. However, he provides a good summary (or conclusion) at the end of three particularly long sections: parts two (‘Historical Development’); four (‘Biblical Considerations’); and five (‘Theological Considerations’).
After setting the scene in part one, Allison embarks in part two on a historical overview of the Western tradition’s approach to the relationships between men and women. He notes that the most common view can be traced to the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. This view, labelled by Allison (and others) as “traditional sex polarity,” over-emphasises gender differences and views (or treats) women as inferior to men. In a later chapter titled ’Christian Patriarchalism’, a view that leans towards sex polarity, Allison is clearly on the side that sees this view and complementarianism as two distinct frameworks.
This historical overview is followed in part three with a much shorter discussion of our contemporary context. Allison includes a chapter on modern feminist movements. Frameworks for understanding both egalitarianism and complementarianism are outlined. He defines them, provides some of their history, and discusses the spectrum of applications for each. In Allison’s view both have “biblical support” (pp. 152, 166) and he laments a lack of constructive discussion on both sides of the debate.
Parts four and five are a rich tapestry of how complementarity is considered in both the Old and New Testaments and in theological thought. Allison weaves into this discussion scholars from both complementarian and egalitarian points of view. These sections provide a helpful range of perspectives for Bible readers and teachers alike as they seek to better understand God’s communication to us.
The last section briefly applies complementarity in relationships including those within the family, the workplace, and the church.
Does Allison’s project work?
Allison seeks to be a peacemaker. In his final paragraph he restates his wish that his writing would enable both complementarian and egalitarian evangelicals to find common ground within his broad framework of complementarity.
Whether he succeeds depends in part on whether readers are persuaded to relinquish some of their suspicions and caricatures about the other side and, instead, to appreciate what we share in the gospel and in biblical understanding. Personally, I think that this would be an excellent outcome of this book.
For my fellow complementarians, expressing and applying complementarity in nuanced, thoughtful and genuine ways would, I think, go some way in reducing the caricatures about us.
At the same time, the reality is that differences remain, and it does seem to me that Allison skirts around this fact. Not every interpretation (or application) of Scripture is equal, and I appreciate the ongoing scholarship of colleagues and others in their careful exegesis of biblical truth in the public arena. Some things ought to be defended, and this inevitably includes disagreeing with another view.
Yet, in defence of Allison’s plea, much is gained (and less is lost) if we engage in the public arena with grace and forbearance, to be generous with those with whom we are not in complete agreement, for God’s glory and for our good.
