Stop apologising for being a complementarian!

"Egalitarian" and "complementarian" are broad categories. However, they do sum up a primary distinction between those who believe that leading and preaching in the church can be a role for either men or women (egalitarian) or those who, like us (Fran Kirby and Graham Nicholls), believe that the church should reflect the household by reserving particular leadership roles for men (complementarian).

We have noticed recently that some complementarians have a tendency to downplay their position – either that or they are inclined to apologise for it, to over-compensate for it, or to try and work around it by creating ministry titles and roles.

There are understandable reasons for this trend. Those of us who are complementarian are concerned about:

• Encouraging (or being seen to encourage) a distorted version of male headship in the church, whether that is toxic masculinity or any other form of teaching in which women are prevented from flourishing in churches, and in which they are instead undervalued or even abused.
• Cultural pressure. We’ve recently come across statistics which state that about three per cent of the UK could be described as evangelical – and just one in ten of UK evangelicals are complementarian. Highlighting your complementarian theology can, at best, feel like swimming upstream. At worst, it can feel like sticking your head above the parapet.

For all these reasons and more, you may find yourself hesitant about the best way to talk about complementarian theology – or you may feel that it is instead better to treat it as you would some unsightly stain in your home, and discreetly cover it up whenever anyone visits.

But we want to encourage you to celebrate the complementary roles and Biblical order, for at least these reasons:

1. It’s Biblical and it’s beautiful. Our conviction and experience is that both women and men flourish most under Christ-like male leadership. Let’s pause here – because that statement can be very easy to mishear.
   
   We are not talking about men and women flourishing under the leadership of men who are merely professing Christians. We are talking about how much flourishing is possible, for women and for men, under the leadership of men who are Christ-like. There can be a world of difference between those two positions.
   
2. It’s a live topic of conversation. A recent study showed that many young men (31 per cent of Gen Z) believe that wives should obey their husbands. That isn’t necessarily a victory for complementarianism – the survey did not ask about whether those in favour of obedient wives are also committed to husbands demonstrating the sacrificial love which forms the other half of a complementarian marriage (Eph. 5v25). However, the study does suggest that a growing proportion of men believe that men and women are different by design and men need to take responsibility to provide and protect, to lead and to serve. That means complementarianism is considerably closer to prevailing cultural winds than we sometimes assume.
   
   And when we are engaging with the majority of Gen Zers who disagree with the concept of obedient wives (69 per cent of men and 82 per cent of women), this cultural moment is an opportunity to start a conversation about their concerns over the survey results.
   

What's the way forward?

Bearing all of this in mind, we want to offer two suggestions.

Firstly, let’s seize the opportunity (both in our teaching and in our conversations) to engage constructively with those who are both for and against wives obeying their husbands. That means recognising where the different viewpoints match up with complementarian theology:

• Celebrate those who believe that men and women are equal in worth.
• Encourage those who recognise that appropriate submission is beautiful.
• Commend those who believe that strong leadership is gentle.
• Appreciate those who understand that difference is not a measure of either superiority or inferiority.
• Celebrate men wanting to be better men and women wanting to be better women.

And, of course, it means acknowledging where the different viewpoints fall short of complementarian theology. So let’s challenge – boldly but gently – those who believe that subordination equates to a lessening in value as well as those who believe that equality necessarily means erasing differences. This conversation is happening outside the church. Let’s make sure we pick it up inside as well.

Secondly, let’s model complementarianism well, both at home and at church. And perhaps that should start with having conversations about it – not just about the doctrine, but also about what it looks like to implement it really well:

• What are the different ways in which complementarian theology is implemented positively in your church (or home)?
• Are there ways in which it particularly grates on certain people or groups?
• What would it look like to address those issues in a healthy way?
• Are there areas in your church (or home) where complementarian theology has struggled to take root? If so, do you understand why?
• What helpful steps could you take to address the difficulties?