The Costs of Complementarianism

As someone raised in Baptist circles, one of the theological battles I fought early on was regarding the inerrancy, authority, and preservation of Scripture. In those days, it was a battle over the use of the King James Version of the Bible. Fortunately, that particular war has died out but there is a new one on the horizon, or perhaps already here, so it is time to draw the theological sword again and do battle against those who deny it. This time, however, the battle is more subtle and insidious, and it is destroying various denominations, associations and churches in Church Triumphant, so I’m going to weigh in on this again.

If you’ve read my Medium page before, you’ll know that I wrote an article a few months back on complementarianism. Thanks to several dear friends and others online, I have become increasingly perturbed at some complementarians who are elevating complementarianism to a first order doctrine. For those who don’t understand this, think of Christian doctrine as a series of tiers. The primary/first-order doctrines are the sine qua non of Christianity — doctrines that cannot be rejected without rejecting the Gospel or Christianity itself. It’s a big deal to change or deny things like the virgin birth, the personhood of God, or the inerrancy of Scripture. There is a secondary tiers for doctrinal disagreements that arise but do not threaten Scripture itself, like modes of baptism or ecclesiastical polity. Finally, there is a third tier of preferential issues that may ‘divide’ us into a certain genus or species, but are not doctrinal at all and do not impugn doctrine in any way. The idea of doctrinal triage is a common topic, probably most popularized by Al Mohler (here). If you want to get into the weeds of doctrinal tiers, there are other resources available at Christianity Today, The Gospel Coalition, and other sites/blogs (see here or throw the term “doctrinal triage” into Google/Bing).

So when I read this article by Denny Burk several weeks ago, I was utterly flabbergasted to see that Burk wants to have his cake by saying that complementarianism isn’t really a first tier issue, but a “second order doctrine that frequently implicates first order doctrines” and then spends the rest of his article eating said cake by arguing for the elevation of complementarianism to a first order doctrine. I could cite massive sections of his article, but let me quote some key points with added emphasis:

Perhaps Lig Duncan has said it best:

The denial of complementarianism undermines the church’s practical embrace of the authority of Scripture (thus eventually and inevitably harming the church’s witness to the Gospel). The gymnastics required to get from “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” in the Bible, to “I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man” in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God…

Our culture’s current focus on intersectional grievance only amplifies these problems. Faithful pastors and ministry leaders who care about the Bible’s functional authority within the church are going to have to prepare themselves and their congregations for these challenges. These conflicts are only going to get worse in the days ahead.

That means we are going to need more discipleship and more biblical grounding for God’s people. More instructing husbands about how self-sacrificially to lead, protect, and provide for their families. More exhortation to wives to affirm and support that leadership…The biblical vision of manhood and womanhood is under assault right now. Contrary to what the critics are saying, the Bible’s complementarian vision of male and female is the most beautiful, life-giving, culture-reforming, gospel-inculcating vision on offer.

Nor is this the first time Burk has argued it. He was laying philosophical framework for it in 2012. So is Colin Smothers (note again his reference to ontology/anatomy as the underlying framework to support Scripture and therefore complementarianism). This teaching isn’t limited to CBMW leadership, either; Jonathan Leeman over at 9 Marks, Tom Buck over at Founders Ministries, and Michelle Lesley (among others — Lesley is merely one of the most recent I’ve seen and the direct impetus for this post) are all singing the same song. This group is separate from what I call the ‘man-cult gospel’ heretics, but that’s a different article for a different time.

To his credit, Dwight McKissic not only saw this coming but ably responded to it via SBC Voices in 2012, saying:

Therefore, I conclude where I started: To equate complementarianism and inerrancy (of which I wholeheartedly believe in) with an accurate understanding or definition of the Gospel is idolizing the doctrines of inerrancy and complementarianism to a height that the Bible does not elevate their doctrines and consequently distorts the true Gospel. It further removes our focus on the Gospel from where Jesus placed it; and that is on the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14, 15). An accurate view of gender roles in Scripture is not a “gospel” essential, nor does it threaten one’s belief regarding inerrancy. That is a cultural Christian perspective, not a biblical Christian perspective.

Dwight is absolutely, totally, and completely correct. For some proponents, the idea of complementarianism has become so closely tied to their understanding of inerrancy that they are now espousing a literal, actual heresy — the de facto denial of Sola Scriptura — to retain their “authority.” This is in addition to the ESS/EFS heresy that many complementarian leaders (notably Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware) have also espoused.

Other able Bible teachers and ministers like Todd Pruitt (here and here) and Carl Trueman were responding to this years ago, before I caught on to where CBMW was heading. Others like Scot McKnight and Rachel Held Evans saw it and responded as well. Look at the prescient words that Held Evans wrote ten years ago:

This was made crystal clear when John Piper announced months ago that Christianity is inherently masculine. Such a view can hardly be described as “complementary” when it excludes one gender entirely. We experience the same discomfort when we realize that, based on the “complementarian” understanding of gender, Fred Phelps would be more qualified to speak to your church on Sunday morning by virtue of being a man than someone like Lois Tverberg or Carolyn Custis James or Christine Caine. When a man with no biblical training whatsoever is considered more qualified to teach than a woman with a PhD in theology or a woman whose work in New Testament scholarship is renowned the world over, we are not seeing complementarianism at work, but patriarchy. (And, I might add, we are missing the Apostle Paul’s point to Timothy about teaching entirely — but that’s a topic for another day.)

Furthermore, as Russell Moore himself has observed, even married couples who identify as “complementarians” are functioning as equal partners rather than forcing a hierarchal pattern onto their relationship that is highly prescriptive regarding gender. This should come as no surprise seeing as how a truly complementary relationship is one in which differences are celebrated, but not forced. If your marriage is like mine, this means that the complementary differences between you and your spouse often fall into gender-influenced norms…but not always…Rather than trying to force our personalities and our roles into prescribed molds based on gender, it just makes more sense to allow our natural difference to enhance and challenge one another. We lead where we are strong; we defer where we are weak.

It is not the purpose of this article to get into another protracted argument about the same Scripture passages we argue about when we argue complementarianism as an idea. The point I want to make is that this is increasingly tied to not just the orthopraxic ideals of some, but has become a battle over the nature of Christian authority itself. We can either be slaves to a particular idea of complementarianism that is promoted by a cabal of high profile and self-promoting Evangelical leaders (and its corresponding deficiencies and foibles, including the utter disregard for how their power and teachings have resulted in the abuse and damage of so many women and children in #ChurchToo or #SBCtoo abuse scandals) or we can go back to Scripture itself and measure their ideas, including gender roles, against what the Bible actually teaches. You see, the costs of complementarianism are rarely felt by those who teach it.

I didn’t write “Dealing With Danvers” because I reject Scripture. I reject CBMW’s teaching because it is increasingly teaching ideas and theories that are at odds with Scripture itself. Consequently, I reject CBMW as an organization because CBMW is demanding authority they do not rightfully have over believers, over our lives, and over Christ’s Church, and it is time to tell them to where to get off.

This is no longer just a debate over the functions of men and women in the church, home and society. This is a battle for the inerrancy, authority and integrity of Scripture itself, and the only appropriate response is to tell these quarrelsome schismatics to repent (Romans 16:17–18). You can have CBMW’s particular flavor of complementarianism OR you can have Biblical inerrancy.

You cannot have both.

I have repeatedly questioned Burk and others on Twitter for their failure to properly address and respond to the SBC sexual abuse crisis; their response has been to block my account. I believe that they are so silent because their ideas on complementarianism are unorthodox, incomplete and distorted. They claim the authority to resolve abusive situations and argue that complementarianism is the solution to abuse, but then deny that they are implicated in a crisis they continue to exacerbate. They are Saul, guarding the murderer’s robes and approving of those who stoned Steven to death in Acts 7:58–60, 8:1–3, and 22:19-20.

As an example, look to CBMW’s utter, gutless and screaming silence on so many prominent SBC abuse scandals — the Sovereign Grace sexual abuse scandal(s), the Paige Patterson sex abuse scandal (and others), the Mark Driscoll scandals (see here AND here), the Bill Hybels and Gilbert Bilezikian sex scandals at Willow Creek, the Ravi Zacharias sex abuse scandal, the Liberty University sex abuse scandals, the Bethlehem Baptist/Bethlehem Seminary scandals, the Christianity Today sex abuse scandal, and most recently the John MacArthur/Phil Johnson/Eileen Gray scandal and now this morning’s story about what has been taught in counseling classes at The Master’s Seminary. It is an inescapable fact that men in their circles are implicated in these scandals. More than a few of our talking heads are directly implicated themselves in these scandals.

Yet these same men have the unmitigated gall to stand before the church as thought leaders on complementarianism and gender role related topics? And demand that we believe they have the answers to society’s issues? And then tell the church that to not agree with them is to deny the principle of Sola Scriptura?

The sheer audacity and brazenness of their hypocrisy and deceit while they enable abuse, fueled by their own interpretations, stagger the mind.

The reason complementarian teachers are so silent about cases of abuse, and waggle their fingers at us and insist that complementarianism is not implicated in abuse, is threefold:

1. Complementarianism as they define it is the source of their authority. They have made themselves the authors of their own authority, which only God can do. The language that they use and the arguments that they have made ties their moral authority to their interpretation of Scripture. To address abuse in any significant way would require a change in their hermeneutic & obliterate their own moral authority.
2. Their understanding of authority is inexorably linked to complementarianism and they will not sacrifice their privileges for it. This self-reinforcing argument has locked them into ever increasing and isolating extremes of application, culminating in a ‘man-cult gospel’ that is not biblical though it has an appearance of it.
3. All of this is reinforced by an industrial complex that brings them influence and financial and social/relational benefits. They cannot be consistent enough with Scripture to break the networks that give them influence and revenue.

These people don’t hate the Rachel Held Evanses, or the Valerie Hobbses, or Rachel Green Millers, or the Aimee Byrds, the Beth Moores and other women within the SBC, or the Kristin Du Metzes, or the Beth Alison Barrs because they’re fighting for so-called “biblical authority.” They oppose them — and any other woman that speaks out —because they love the darkness that is keeping them in power and the Evangelical-Industrial-Complex gravy train rolling ever onward. They love the benefits of their evil deeds and wicked doctrines. To be really pointed, their philosophy is in functional agreement with Mark Driscoll:

I am all about blessed subtraction. There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus. By God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done. Either get on the bus or you get run over by the bus, those are the options. But the bus ain’t gonna stop.”

Well, I’m not playing your game anymore, and I’m certainly not going to surrender the doctrine of Inerrancy to you without a fight. You lying hypocrites need to do the Biblical thing and repent.

· Repent from your unorthodox theological systems that create partiality in the church (James 2:1–7)

· Repent from your constant cries to be of a particular tribe that prides itself on being “complementarian” over being in the Church itself (1 Cor. 1:10–13)

· Repent from using the Church as a marketplace for your benefit (Matt. 21:12–13)

· Repent from lying about and slandering other men and women in the Body you claim to love (Eph. 4:31)

· Repent from your own arrogance, pride and hypocrisy (Prov. 6:16–19)

· Repent from twisting the Word of God into a weapon to use against the sheep (Ezekiel 34)

So the war is on, and it’s not a war I’m interested in losing. Time to fight.