(An earlier version of this review appeared on Mike Bird’s substack in November 2022.)
Complementarianism Laid Bare?
A review of Embracing Complementarianism: Turning Biblical Convictions into Positive Church Culture, by Graham Beynon and Jane Tooher (The Good Book Company, 2022). 159 pages.
In this short book, the authors want to help churches put complementarianism into practice in a way that they believe is healthier and more biblically faithful.
I found the book fascinating, because of its unintended effect.
This work lays bare the difficulty of reconciling complementarianism with a coherent understanding of Scripture. It exposes the empty space at its center.
Positives
Let’s start with many positives. The book is clear and well-written. It contains much that is good.
The authors rightly recognize that in Scripture there are no separate commands for godliness to men or women as such, but only instructions for particular relationships (55-56, 61). Our common goal of Christlikeness does not come in pink and blue versions (56-57, 59).
They acknowledge that the observed non-sexual differences between men and women sit on overlapping bell curves (28). This means that, though there are differences between the average man and woman in their aptitudes, behaviors and preferences, there is substantial overlap.
This acknowledgment is consistent with research data. For most gender differences, the range between individuals within each sex is much greater than the difference between the average man and woman. (See Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural & Practical Perspectives, 3rd edn, chapter 22.)
As created by God, we are first humans made in God’s image, and secondarily men and women (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:18, 22-23).
Complementarian writers often allege that so-called “evangelical egalitarians” believe that there are no differences between men and women beyond the obvious physical/sexual characteristics. Beynon and Tooher successfully avoid that error.
Surprisingly, they claim at the start of the book that complementarianism was historically the normal position of the church across the world (9). In fact, it was invented in the USA in the 1970s and 80s. But they correct themselves later in the book. They correctly note that the current affirmation of women’s equal worth was not the norm in church history (45). The historic justification for men-only leadership was women’s supposed inferiority, incompetence and gullibility as compared with men.
The authors explicitly reject this historic view (32, 69). It was tied to a misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2:14 which is now generally rejected on all sides.
They are rightly concerned about deliberate or unwitting sexism.
In the Piper/Grudem version of complementarianism, the essence of the complementarity of men and women is that strong men lead while weaker women submit. (See Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 2021 reprint, 40-63.) Beynon and Tooher gently signal that this version is distorted by American 20th-century cultural norms and is out of step with Scripture (33-35, 54-55, 60, 63).
They also sound a note of caution about Alastair Roberts’ more recent “over-reading” of Genesis 1-3 (43-44).
They draw attention to women’s hosting of NT churches in their homes and to the apostle Paul’s descriptions of women as his valued co-workers, just as men were (101-102).
They rightly urge that the equality of God’s image taught in Genesis 1-2 needs to be embodied in reality in our churches (45). According to Scripture, spiritual gifts are distributed among believers without gender differentiation, and men should expect to be taught by women (99). “The complementarity of the genders means it is to the detriment of the church if ministry by women is minimised or marginalized” (105). Worse, marginalizing women’s contributions is actually disobedient to God (49).
On Scriptural grounds, they are critical of separate streams of ministry for men and women, except as add-ons to normal church life (87). “If ministries become mainly separate, there isn’t much complementing going on” (14).
Restricting the ministry of gifted women simply because they are women is “baffling” in Western culture (10) and “can seem to go against logic, experience, calling and gifting” (69).
They emphasize the practical importance of women’s input into elders’ decisions and preaching (106-107, 133-134, 138). They affirm that women are capable of the tasks required of church elders (73).
So, why are they complementarian?
With all this in mind, why are Beynon and Tooher still complementarian?
They accept that men and women are equally in the image of God. Women are not inferior. Women are no more gullible than men. Ministry in the church is gift-based. Spiritual gifts are nowhere indicated to be distributed according to sex. Women were prominent in the work of ministry in New Testament churches. God has in fact given gifts of leadership and teaching to women. What, then, is the authors’ rationale for interpreting 1 Timothy 2 as imposing a general restriction on the service of gifted women?
My expectations of an answer were raised by the intriguing chapter title “The Goodness of Men Leading in Ministry”. But the needed explanation is not provided.
They say that in 1 Timothy 2, Paul is discussing public worship. But they do not disclose why (supposedly) they imagine that the good works of v. 10 or the childbearing of v. 15 take place in public worship (73).
They distinguish between “teaching” (not authoritative) and “Teaching” (authoritative). But they do not identify a clear biblical basis for this distinction (75-76).
They adopt the ESV’s controversial rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12 (“exercise authority”). But they choose not to tell us why (73, 12-13).
They assert that what happened in Genesis (as referred to in 1 Timothy 2:13-14) “gives the reason why the church of God, not just the church in Ephesus, is ordered the way it is” (76). But they don’t explain why they take Paul’s reference to Genesis as implying some general principle of male-over-female authority, rather than as illustrating a deceived woman leading a man astray.
The hole in the heart
Above all, Beynon and Tooher don’t tell us how their interpretation makes sense, in the light of women’s biblical equality, complementarity and God-given gifts of wisdom and leadership.
In that context, what is the reason for this supposed ordering of men over women?
To claim that this is God’s design is not enough. There is no explicit command from God anywhere in the Bible that men ought to be the leaders of women. If they are going to claim that this command is implied, they need solid reasons to justify the implication.
Why does complementarity stop outside the pastor’s or elders’ door? Why might God want only men to give authoritative leadership and teaching in his church? Why is it good to exclude or limit equally capable and gifted women?
The lack of an explanation is the hole in the heart of a complementarian approach to women’s ministry.
A red flag
The authors perceive “growing divergence within the complementarian camp” (11).
They lament that complementarianism focuses on trying to define the boundaries of what women may and may not do (14).
But that is the question that their book keeps coming back to, because complementarians cannot agree on it. The boundaries are drawn in many different places (20-21, 33, 84, 102, 105, 106, 109, 110, 113-127, 130, 138, 141-146). Some readers may recall Grudem’s unsuccessful attempt to settle the debate with his list of 83 activities that in his opinion can or can’t be done by women (Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth, 84-100).
These uncertainties create enormous difficulty for gifted women, who must constantly take precautions not to overstep an invisible and movable boundary.
The authors strive valiantly to help with this question of boundaries by setting it in the context of wider theological considerations.
But this doesn’t work. Faced with an unclear rule lacking an explanatory rationale, it is inevitable that the boundaries are so contested and uncertain.
Beynon and Tooher candidly admit they cannot agree even with each other on whether women may lead public church services (124, 145).
That is a red flag. It results from interpreting 1 Timothy 2 in a way that doesn’t make good sense in the context of the New Testament.
A worthy attempt at an impossible task
I want to commend the spirit in which the book is written.
The authors are trying to take on board what they see in Scripture. God has endowed women with wisdom, competence and spiritual gifts, from which the church should fully benefit, to the glory of God and the blessing of the world.
But they seem unaware of the sometimes unbearable tension created by their teaching. Women ought to be making full use of their spiritual gifts of teaching and leadership, but at the same time they ought to remain within uncertain boundaries that complementarians are unable to agree upon.
This well-intentioned book unwittingly demonstrates that turning complementarian convictions into positive church culture is an impossible task.