Ideas

The Accidental Complementarian

How I came to embrace this misunderstood label.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Twice my husband left me. The first time, he moved months ahead of our family to attend Chicago's most prestigious business school. I was pregnant with our third child. The second time, he moved months ahead of us to Toronto, accepting what we both considered an irresistible career opportunity. I stayed behind with the five little ones—and the responsibilities.

Our arrangement could illustrate the burden of complementarian theology. Men are imagined leading in their marriages and churches, fleet-footed after their dreams. Women are pictured trailing behind, bedraggled with the demands of self-sacrifice. I sometimes can't help wondering if the stereotypes are true.

Yet they aren't the full truth, and misunderstandings about complementarians abound. At a recent women's conference, I heard a speaker describe her egalitarian upbringing, saying it wasn't until college that she recognized the breadth of theological difference on this issue.

"I was shocked. And to be honest, I was heartbroken. It had never occurred to me that in this day and age, so many people just like me were being sidelined," she said. Her implication? Complementarianism was theology that should have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Like me, the closet complementarians in the room may have sensed the muting of their voices in a circle designed to celebrate them.

When my husband and I graduated from Wheaton College, we married as committed egalitarians. I did not vow to submit on our wedding day. My husband and I both believed that male headship was a sign of the curse (Gen. 3:16).

But somewhere over the years, our ideas changed. Maybe our egalitarian confidence eroded, slowly and imperceptibly, in our complementarian pews. However, if only to myself, I must insist that my theology has not formed exclusively through passive absorption.

From my earliest days of faith, I accepted the Scriptures' right to speak. I also owned my deaf ear. When it comes to reading and interpreting God's Word, the only real confidence I've maintained is in my own sinful hostility. Perhaps holiness was nearer in the answers I would rather refuse.

With this approach, many years into marriage, I—a headstrong, egalitarian woman—embraced a complementarian reading of 1 Corinthians 11:3: "But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." I sought the truth—and made an interpretive decision.

I knew from classes at Wheaton that head could be interpreted as "source," not "authority." Still, I couldn't deny the plain truth that while on earth, Jesus Christ deferred to his Father's authority.

I found a defense for the holy beauty of submission when I hadn't gone looking for it. Jesus Christ, obedient to his Father, went willingly to his death—for me. Was I to argue against the disposition that saved me? Running, I was caught.

Being a complementarian woman in an egalitarian world is wildly unpopular; it can also be perceived as decidedly ignorant. Some readers may sympathize with my hope for reprieve. And while the word has fallen out of favor with some, I know no other way to decide the contentions of my own heart than biblically. That verse continues to hold me in its grasp.

Recently, I returned to a commentary by New Testament scholar Richard B. Hays. I found hermeneutical candor from the strong egalitarian. Hays affirms that Paul is preaching male authority in this passage:

Any honest appraisal of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 will require both teacher and students to confront the patriarchal implications of verses 3 and 7–9. Such implications cannot be explained away by some technical move, such as translating kephalē as "source," rather than "head," because the patriarchal assumptions are imbedded in the structure of Paul's argument.

Hays posits this reading as a "problem" and suggests that we "consider other readings that might stand alongside Paul's and provide a challenge to it." But if disagreeing with Paul is the leap I must make to egalitarian theology, I remain reluctantly caught, even in this day and age.

Jen is a complementarian, we nod. I am described by the convenience of a category. One word makes me a friend or foe.

As generalizations generally go, the move to reduce complexity is unsatisfactory. In this debate, as in others, we cannot cram the wholeness of faith and praxis into the corset of a single word. And if we are frank, we could all admit to failing the standard of systematic.

I am a complementarian. But as is also true for my egalitarian sisters in Christ, that isn't all there is to know.

Jen Pollock Michel is a mother of five, speaker, and author of the forthcoming Teach Us to Want (IVP Crescendo).

Our Latest

The Bulletin

Praying for Time

Hosts and guests discuss Gen Z in the workplace, Israeli hostages, and astronauts stuck in space.

Wire Story

China Ends International Adoptions, Leaving Hundreds of Cases in Limbo

The decision shocked dozens of evangelical families in the US who had been in the process since before the pandemic.

Wire Story

Bangladeshi Christians and Hindus Advocate for a Secular Country

As political changes loom and minority communities face violence, religious minorities urge the government to remove Islam as the state religion.

Public School Can Be a Training Ground for Faith

My daughter will wrestle with worldliness in her education, just as I did. That’s why I want to be around to help.

Boomers: Serve Like Your Whole Life Is Ahead of You

What will our generation do with the increased life expectancy God has blessed us with?

Review

Take Me Out to Something Bigger Than a Ballgame

American stadiums have always played host both to major sports and to larger social aspirations.

How to Find Common Ground When You Disagree About the Common Good

Interfaith engagement that doesn’t devolve into a soupy multiculturalism is difficult—and necessary in our diverse democracy.

Wire Story

Evangelical Broadcasters Sue Over IRS Ban on Political Endorsements

Now that some nonprofit newspapers have begun to back candidates, a new lawsuit asks why Christian charities can’t take sides.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube