Recently I ran across this article in the Tennessean: “Should wives submit? Debate resurges in some Christian circles.” My initial response was to shake my head and think, “Are we really still dealing with this?” My follow up thought though recognized my hypocrisy in that I once held a similar perspective.
Being raised in the southern “Bible Belt” of the United States and having attended a conservative Christian seminary, I once was conflicted about this issue. On one hand, it was clear all around me that women were capable, equal leaders fulfilling many responsible roles, and that was a good thing. On the other hand, my narrower cultural milieu told me to uphold the “traditional” roles of men taking the lead, especially in the home and the church. There are many who have been steeped in these conservative Christian circles who still experience this dissonance: You don’t want to compromise what you’ve been taught concerning what Scripture says on this subject. But, the reality all around you and what seems right tells you differently.
For me, I tried to strike a compromise between the two positions with what has more recently been called “soft complementarianism.” Basically, it’s an attempt to still uphold that men technically are supposed to lead in the church and home, but that in the rest of the world and even in how that plays out in everyday living, there can be equal leadership. So women are encouraged to teach and lead in church in all kinds of capacities but have to stop short of being an elder. In the home, mutual leadership in decision making is the normal way to operate. However, if a husband and wife have tried every way possible to see eye to eye on a decision and just can’t; then, the default tie-breaker is the husband (I even tried to soften this by stating that the husband is supposed to put his wife’s needs first when making the tie-breaking decision).
In many ways I still sympathize somewhat with the “soft complementarians.” Realizing that a deeply held cultural religious conviction needs to change is difficult. Often one wishes to navigate the needed social change slowly and with caution, attempting to continue to respect one’s tradition as well as to challenge and modify it. I see many soft complementarians attempting to cross that bridge slowly. This is definitely a better direction than the recent revival of a more hard-core “complementarianism” among many younger, very conservative evangelicals. (Recently a friend told me of a twenty-something mom within this movement who had been asked if she could meet with some other moms for a play date. She responded that she probably could, but needed to call and ask her husband if that was permissible!)
But I began to struggle with my “soft” complementarianism. It seemed that no matter how I tried to slice it, spin it, or soften it; at the end of the day, however much the gap was minimized, women remained inferior to men. By making the husband the default tie-breaker within the home, even in the best of marriages, there is still the subtle message that the wisdom of a woman is less than that of a man. By making the position of leadership within spiritual community inaccessible based solely on gender, a glass ceiling is imposed that speaks volumes to the souls of women and where they stand in social order, and even perhaps before God. Further, while most soft complementarians may function as egalitarians in their homes and marriages, the theological position they feel they have to uphold is used in many churches and homes to disempower women and keep them “in their place.” Ideas do have consequences, and, in my journey, holding this theological position became a problem of injustice for me.
Years ago my vocation began taking me to various parts of the globe dealing with issues of injustice. Time and again I encountered cultural practices that subjugated and subverted women, most always justified through long standing traditional or religious values and mores. Whether through a process or an abrupt change, it was not until those values were challenged and replaced that breakthroughs for women were realized. I began challenging my own beliefs.
Did I really believe in a God and a gospel that would subjugate part of the humanity (however so slightly) to another part of humanity simply because of their gender (or race)? Of course not. The Jesus I saw in Scripture consistently disrupted the social norms of his day and empowered the women who followed him. I also came to believe that whatever interpretative Scriptural difficulties there may be on this subject, the early church, based on their experience of Jesus, began to set as their trajectory one overriding principle: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).” No limitations. No subjugation. Nothing less than living in full equality with one another. Complete freedom to be who God made you to be regardless of gender or ethnicity. That’s just. That’s good news. That’s a trajectory worth following.
