SHOW NOTES:

What is complementarianism? Where did it begin? What are the practical effects of its teachings on real life couples and Christian communities? And how do we, as Christian couples and communities, do the most good and the least harm when it comes to how and what we teach? Tune in and stay tuned to engage in this conversation.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Welcome back to the Brave Marriage Podcast, a podcast for couples and communities who want to grow as individuals, do marriage with intention, and live mutually empowered, purposeful lives. If you’re just joining us, I’m Kensi, an LMFT who’s passionate about helping couples discover mutuality in Christian marriage, that we might grow healthier individually and together—not only as couples, but as the body of Christ.

In Season 2, our theme is marriage, mutuality, and gender roles, and over the next two episodes, we are talking about complementarianism and egalitarianism.  

If you’re unfamiliar with these two terms, these are two distinct approaches to the way Christians have come to define their positions, theologically, on the relationship between males and females, in the 20th century, as it relates to equality, authority, leadership, and roles in marriage and ministry. Why I’m wanting to define these two positions at this point is because they carry very different implications for what actually gets played out between husbands and wives in marriage, and for what actually takes place between men and women in the church.

In the summer of 2018, right as I launched this podcast, I was still on social media at the time, and taking questions to address on the podcast. And immediately, from the beginning of Brave Marriage, I had someone ask, complementarianism or egalitarianism—which is better? 

Now at the time, I thought I had a firm grasp on both, yet not a strong position on either. On complementarianism, having read books from that perspective since high school and having studied at the Focus Leadership Institute at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and reading Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which was the text first written to specifically define the complementarian position. And then, I attended a megachurch and two denominational churches that supported a complementarian view, without explicitly using that term. And when you live somewhere, where complementarianism is baked into the culture and traditional gender roles are widely accepted, you don’t really see it as an issue to take up, because you don’t see it from any other perspective at all—at least from any other perspective that you deem worth considering (I didn’t at the time). 

…Which is funny because I grew up in a church that would say it holds egalitarian doctrine, in that it supports women in ministry, and I ended up at a Wesleyan university and seminary for my education. But like the complementarian churches I attended, the church I grew up in and the egalitarian ones I’ve attended since didn’t explicitly use that term to describe their position either. So on the surface, it seemed like, either way is good, whatever couples prefer, I’m Switzerland on the question. My only desire is to share with couples the idea of mutuality in marriage and mutual flourishing, this idea that men and women are created equal and designed as marriage partners to reflect the image of God, and the relationship between Christ and His bride by way of intimacy and mutual love, respect, submission, and empowerment between spouses. 

But what began to dawn on me was that what we talk about here on the Brave Marriage Podcast is new to so many couples. Some couples, and solid couples from solid families started sharing with me that no one ever painted a picture for them in the church of mutual flourishing in marriage, or of making room for each other in marriage and ministry. And it had begun to free both of them. 

So clearly, the complementarian/egalitarian question is one that I have developed a lot of passion around the longer I’ve been doing this. And here’s what I want to say first: I believe that at the end of the day, Christ’s grace prevails and His transforming love for us is stronger than our limited understanding, and while I believe that the Holy Spirit can do whatever He wants, in whoever He wants, and turn marriages around and use couples—complementarians and egalitarians alike—for His glory. Having said that, I also think it’s appropriate to ask those in the Church—as a Christian and as a marriage counselor—to take a look at what we’re actually saying, what we’re actually teaching, and how that’s actually affecting couples in our congregations and in our communities. I think it certainly could do us good to take a look at both positions to see how we, the body of Christ, can do the most good and the least harm, to couples and families in our congregations, in our communities, in our care. 

So as I talk about complementarianism today, I ask for your understanding. For your openness to hear its history, to try and understand what’s going on behind the scenes, which I’ll do my best to explain given my study, and to have compassion for the people of God as we take a look together. And I wouldn’t be asking us to really take a look at these positions and challenges ourselves on them unless I thought that together, we could bring our intelligence to this as couples, our advocacy to our own relationships and for those we do life with, and our hearts to know God more fully and the depths of love and freedom and flourishing He has for us. 

Okay, starting with complementarianism:

Complementarianism is the belief that men and women are created equal in spiritual worth and dignity, but different in spiritual role and function. In the home, men are to lead and women are to help. In the church, men are to lead from the pulpit and both men and women are to be inspired by their leadership to fulfill their complementary ministries—typically men as pastors, elders, and unrestricted teachers, and women serving in every other function in the church. And men, but the first three offices mentioned are typically reserved for men based on Paul’s teachings to certain churches in the New Testament. But for the purpose of this podcast, which pertains to marriage, we’ll limit our conversation to the role of husbands and wives. 

In a complementarian family, there’s a belief in the general premise of male headship and female submission. As Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood states: “Biblical headship for the husband is the divine calling to take primary responsibility for Christlike servant leadership, protection and provision in the home. Biblical submission for the wife is the divine calling to honor and affirm her husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts” (p. 63). Complementarians also have varying views on the degree to which women should submit to all men or just their husbands and pastors, but officially, the position is: “Ephesians 5:22, Titus 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:1, 5 exhort wives to be subject to ‘your own’ husbands. This term ‘your own’ shows that the relationship of leadership and submission between a woman and her husband should be different from the relationship of leadership and submission that she may have with men in general” (p. 52). 

Complementarianism is the majority view in evangelical Christianity today because of its emphasis on harmony displayed through complementary roles, as outlined by Paul in Ephesians 5:22-33. It’s taught in many churches to help couples understand their male and female roles, purpose, and the meaning of Christian marriage, to illustrate the mysterious relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church. 

Now here’s the thing…I think if we were to start there and end there, or work our way toward the centrality of Christ and his character as evidenced in the Gospels, I think most of us would agree that the relationship between men and women in marriage and ministry would be a beautiful thing to behold! I mean, consider how Jesus related to both men and women in the Gospels and in the beginning of Acts, both who represent the bride and body of Christ! Consider the types of people he engaged with, listened to, healed, criticized, challenged, and called to serve and follow Him. (And by the way, Paul does exactly that if you read his letters to the churches in their entirety. He always starts with the centrality and preeminence of Christ in the Church and in our lives as the basis for our Christian living, including our marriage relationships.)

But that’s not where the Complementarian camp focused in the beginning—the beginning being the 1980s. In fact, in their first official position paper, what’s known as the Danvers Statement, not once is Jesus or any of the four Gospels cited in the biblical references given to support the position. Instead, Complementarianism began with lots of inherent contradictions, pointing to what’s biblical in some ways, but exposing their cultural biases in others. Understandably, much of this plays out in my office. And we’ll spend the next bit of the episode taking a look at some of those mixed messages and trying to understand all the different competing components. 

You might be surprised to learn that the term complementarian was created in 1988, just 33 years ago. It was a term invented to draw attention to the male and female complementary embedded in the position, and away from the hierarchy and patriarchy built into the perspective. That’s not how the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would say it, but in my research, it seems that because of the Women’s Movement, the term “Christian patriarchy” had a bit of a PR problem, and a small group of evangelicals were looking to nail down a thesis of human sexuality—specifically, of biblical manhood and masculinity and biblical womanhood and femininity. Thus, the term complementarian was chosen to emphasize the harmony between men and women in marriage and ministry, when played out through male-female complementary in their respective roles as head and helper. 

Now I want you to put yourself in their shoes for a second…

We’ve already talked a little about the Feminist Movement, the Sexual Revolution, Civil Rights and Women’s Rights in previous episodes. Well, this was the rising tide that Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and others were seeking to address in their formation of a formal position on biblical sexuality. And to some degree, I can understand and empathize with that desire. I grew up in a small church in the ‘90s with many older couples who were parenting children in the ‘70s and ‘80s, and I remember one specific couple’s disdain for sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, and anything remotely feminist. Because having had children negatively impacted by some of those things at the time, they railed against them, believing that women should be protected from the world, finding their place in the home and in the pews, and that men should step up, finding their place in servant leadership at home and at work. 

But what society was offering and modeling at the time wasn’t all bad, right? We can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The Women’s Rights movement offered an articulation of what many women were already experiencing, and this gave Christian women a chance to envision themselves as living into all they were made to be, not just into who they were always told to be. So as you can imagine, many in conservative Christian circles were feeling anxious, concerned, fearful, even potentially displaced, should they fail to take back the Christian culture wars for God. To use some of the language from the handbook on complementarianism, this group was truly worried about “secular feminism infecting the church” and Christians being swayed to believe things they deemed antithetical to Scripture. 

And given the past few years for us, I think we can all appreciate the uncertainty, the unknown as to what the future will look like or what changing tides will bring. So I want us to have compassion for where they were at the time, so close to culture change, and yet so far away from being able to observe the effects of what they proposed at the time as a better future for Christian marriages and families. 

And that’s the problem, isn’t it? That any of us can be genuinely worried and concerned about something, desiring to make change for the better. And at the very same time, we can have blind spots that lead us to engage in efforts that are well-intentioned, but turn out to be more harmful than helpful. It seems to me that rather than giving an honest evaluation or even a 30,000 foot-view to the good brought about by women gaining equal rights, this original group in the ‘80s was unable to hold their faith and culture in tension, which led to doubling-down on their rather homogenous perspective, without really listening to the other side with an open mind and heart. And so, in an effort to define the correct Christian position, this group of 25 evangelicals wrote what’s known as the Danvers Statement. From there, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood began distributing the publication, and what I’ve heard referred to as “The Blue Bible” was written in 1991, entitled: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. 

So in 1988, it was decided that the term complementarian would be used to describe their position. 

Now, this might be getting into the weeds a bit, but I’m including it because I think it’s worth taking a look at the official Complementarian position to understand the differences between what views are held on paper versus what gets played out in practice when couples, churches, and communities firmly hold this view. 

Starting with Danvers Statement, written in December of 1987, it included 2 sections: its Rationale for existence and Biblical Affirmations outlining what Complementarians believe. 

The rationale section starts: “We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern…” and then it lists 10 points outlining their concerns. In summary: the confusion in our culture regarding the differences between masculinity and femininity; the subsequent unraveling of marriages; the ambivalence of women toward motherhood, homemaking, and women’s ministries; the increase of pornography and the distortion of human sexuality; an increase in physical and emotional abuse in the family; the promotion of Egalitarianism, leading to distortions in the harmony between husbands as loving and humble leaders, and wives as intelligent yet willing followers; an increase of women in church leadership; and finally, the threat to Biblical authority, as they saw it, by egalitarian theologians and scholars who were working on more accurate translations of the Greek and Hebrew into English, and who were seeking to understand the Bible as it was written and intended, interpreting each book not with a fundamental Western lens, but with a contextual middle Eastern lens. 

Okay, so this describes the concerns they were having in the late ‘80s, which we’ve talked about already, and there are a few earlier points of rationale upon which egalitarian Christians would also affirm as problematic, but of course, since the latter half of their concern was solely around egalitarian Christians, they would obviously differ on those points.  

In the affirmation section, we’ll have to break this down a little bit more, but it begins “Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following…” There are 10 bullet points, but I’ve lumped some together for the sake of time.

(A) That man and woman are created in God’s image, equal yet distinctly different in the created order, per their God-ordained masculine and feminine roles. And here are those roles according to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:

“At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships” (p. 41). 

“At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships” (p. 41).

“A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God” (Ch. 3, p. ).

(B) That the Old and New Testaments affirm God-ordained male headship in the home and in the church—so they see male headship as biblical prescriptive, whereas egalitarians would see male headship as purely descriptive.

(C) That Adam’s headship over Eve was inherent in creation, not a consequence of sin or the Fall. Rather, it was the Fall that led to both passivity and abuse of power in men; and it was the Fall that led women to both servility (which is excessive pleasing of men and others) and usurping male authority. 

This point is really important. Everything that complementarians believe flow out of their presupposition that male headship is built into the created order—that it’s reflected in the Trinity with the subordination of the Son to the Father; that when Paul says “the husband is the head of the wife,” that he means the husband is to lead, protect, and provide for his wife”; and that when God delivers the curse to the man, woman, and serpent, that God is saying, “Eve, you will desire to ruin, destroy, and usurp your husband’s authority, but in my good and gracious plan for you, Eve, Adam will rule over you.”

I remember being taught this at Focus on the Family in my Gender Identity and Leadership Class, where we read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and in 21 years of being a Christian, I had never heard this particular exegesis of God’s curse to Eve, that her heart would be evil toward her husband, but that because of Christ’s redemption, she would be able to be free from that posture, and that Adam would rule over her with love. That was also a time when the English Standard Version read, “…and your desire shall be for your husband…” in Genesis 3:16, instead of “and your desire shall be contrary to your husband” as it was permanently changed to in 2016–a decision which was later reversed after the outrage of scholars. Anyway

(D) That no earthly submission should follow human authority into sin—a point upon which Complementarians and egalitarians would both agree.

(E) That Christ came to reverse the curse of gender-role confusion, and confusion around the created order; that because of our redemption in Christ, husbands should aim to forsake harsh or selfish leadership, while wives should aim to forsake resistance to their husband’s authority. In Christ, husbands should grow in love and care for their wives, while wives should grow in willing, joyful submission.

Now this point comes directly from Ephesians 5 where Paul puts a twist on the ancient household codes. But whereas egalitarians tend to start with Ephesians 5:21, with the call to the church to mutually submit to one another in love, Complementarians tend to start with Ephesians 5:22, with the call for wives to submit to their husbands. What I also found interesting is the additional omission of any reference to the Gospels or to the teachings of Jesus.  

(F) That women or men who feel called to lead or pastor should never use their “heartfelt sense of call to ministry” as reason to go against Paul’s prescription for godly men to lead, except in places outside the reach of indigenous evangelism, as outlined further in point #9. In other words, in places where missionaries have not yet gone and established a Christian presence, the Danvers Statement allows that “no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of God and the good of this fallen world.” In other words, if a people group is unreached, one’s sex doesn’t matter in the delivery of the Gospel, because the Gospel matters too much to limit the sharing of it, on the basis of sex. However, in establishing Christianity as a religious presence in that unreached people group, male and female missionaries are expected to teach Complementarianism, organizing families and church communities accordingly.

By now, I hope you can more clearly see some of Complementarianism’s internal contradictions.

Now, I want you to hear me on this, because even though I’ve shifted the neutrality of my position, I really do want to be fair to the Complementarian position in their commitment to Scripture, as they understand it. They read it plainly and in the tradition of Christian fundamentalism and with commentary or statements like these from scholars they trust. Nevermind the fact that the Danvers Statement doesn’t include one single reference to Jesus’ teachings or the Gospels, for a lot of people, especially in my context of small town Christian America, Complementarianism makes sense. Gender roles and gender bias often already exist and are un-examined. There’s nothing really new there except for those who are genuinely committed to Christ, to turn from their selfish ways and love each other like Jesus. And for a lot of Complementarians, I believe their desire to know Truth and to live by it is genuine and pure.

Here’s the problem. 

In John 8:31-32, Jesus said to the Jews: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the Truth and the truth will set you free.” 

That’s not the problem; this is: I don’t see a lot of freedom coming from Complementarian teaching or practice. I say it like that because many people who call themselves Complementarians aren’t—but we’ll get to that in a minute.

Let me start with complementarian teaching: In my opinion, Complementarianism has led to more confusion than clarity for couples. Because first of all, both complementarians and egalitarians affirm the complementarity between men and women, as two distinct genders uniquely, yet together, reflecting the image of God, which you can read about in the link in the full transcript to an article by Scot McKnight. But second of all, in my opinion, Complementarianism, as defined in 1988, has intentionally or unintentionally created a bait-and-switch, whereby what is offered on the attractive surface isn’t all that couples are getting when they buy into the product. In other words, the advertising of the product turns out to be very different from what couples expect and what they receive when they unbox the whole package. 

Here are some examples of the confusing messages, mincing of words, and contradictions built into Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. 

“If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence” (p. 15).

In other words, the term Complementarian was chosen because it’s more comfortable and palatable. And at the time, it seemed, they hoped to be open to letting Scripture challenge tradition. They also preferred Complementarian to hierarchicalist, even though that name was thrown into the mix as an option, because they genuinely wanted to emphasize equality and the beauty of mutual interdependence, while minimizing the structured authority still built in.

“While I am not keen on hierarchy and patriarchy as terms describing the man-woman relationship in Scripture, Genesis 2:18–23 . . . and Ephesians 5:21–33 . . . continue to convince me that the man-woman relationship is intrinsically nonreversible. By this I mean that, other things being equal, a situation in which a female boss has a male secretary, or a marriage in which the woman (as we say) wears the trousers, will put more strain on the humanity of both parties than if it were the other way around. This is part of the reality of the creation, a given fact that nothing will change” (p. 54).

In other words, while the writer doesn’t like thinking of his position in terms of hierarchy or patriarchy, he cannot say, in good conscience, that they are not a part of his position. Based on his reading of Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5, paired with his fear of Matriarchy perhaps, or role reversal, he concludes that patriarchy is a fact of creation. That men and women are equal…except on the basis of personhood, sex, and authority. 

Can you see why this would cause someone to have to do a bit of mental gymnastics? And there are 690 pages of this book, taking time to exegete every related passage and answering every possible question that might come up about Complementarianism. And part of me respects this endeavor. I remember reading the book in college and thinking, “My goodness, I’m so glad these guys took the time to form a position for me and to reason with all of these extraneous questions because this seems so complicated and complex!” Now, my Christian upbringing contributed to this thought, too, because prior to my reading, I was also taught to be humble, lowly, to not think too much of myself, which in some ways was constructive to character building, and in other ways, misguided, in that the way I was taught this led me to distrust my own intelligence. And so, I trusted theirs. I took them at their word and considered all the things they were saying as just part of playing my role in the kingdom of God. 

This is why Complementarianism is confusing to so many people and why, unless you’ve grown up in it, or are immersed in it, it can be a little bit crazy-making. 

Case in point: By 2012, Mary Kassian wrote an article entitled, “Complementarianism for Dummies” to try and clarify the position. A founder of the movement, she wrote:

“I was at the meeting, 25 years ago, where the word “complementarianism” was chosen. So I think I have a good grasp on the word’s definition.” 

The graphics on that post read: 1. It’s about complimenting, not complimenting. 2. It’s not about perpetuating a 1950s stereotype—that’s called traditionalism. 3. It’s not about one sex being more privileged than the other—that’s called hierarchicalism. 4. It’s not about guys having the right to rule over and oppress—that’s called patriarchalism. 5. It’s about male and female reflecting complementary truths about Jesus. Kassian concludes her article: “We don’t get to dictate what manhood and womanhood are all about. Our Creator does.” 

Okay, but again, given the text we’ve previously covered, just because the term Complementarianism was the one chosen to represent the group’s predominant value doesn’t mean they’re not present in the position itself. 

Remember, patriarchy has played out predominantly in culture since the beginning of civilization, as has the practice of men as heads of households. The inferiority of the female sex has been an idea forwarded by men throughout history. Take St. Augustine, for example, who wrote in the 4th century: “It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands…because the justice of this lies in the lesser serves the greater…. This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serves the stronger.” Take John Calvin, for example, who wrote in the 16th century: “Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex.” In the 18th-19th centuries, the idea of complementarity took root to maintain social stability with the emergence of the love-based marriage. And finally, in the 20th century, this same blend of Scripture and sexism has been promoted through Complementarian teaching. 

“Manhood” and “womanhood” as such are now often seen as irrelevant factors in determining fitness for leadership.“ … When the Bible teaches that men and women fulfill different roles in relation to each other, charging man with a unique leadership role, it bases this differentiation not on temporary cultural norms but on permanent facts of creation” (p. 40).

And the thing is, Complementarian teaching is pervasive. It shows up all over the internet, on social media, without our necessarily knowing it. The Gospel Coalition, GotQuestions.org, Crossway, who publishes the English Standard Version of the Bible, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and in many Christian marriage and parenting books and podcasts. 

But more and more, their own proponents are identifying the presence of hierarchy (J.I. Packer), patriarchy (Russell Moore), paternalism (Hannah Anderson), subordination (Beth Allison Barr), and benevolent sexism as built into the Complementarian position, whose books and articles I’ve linked to in the full transcript on my website. 

And finally, I want to cover complementarianism in practice. Now, as I said before, some couples, by the grace of God, maneuver around this in their marriages. They stick to the Ephesians 5 passage, but base their love and respect for each other on Jesus instead of on hierarchical practice. They intuitively find healthier ways to relate. They leave the misogyny out of their marriages. And so, I’ve known plenty of couples who call themselves Complementarian, who say they hold complementarian beliefs, but in actuality, the way they live is quite egalitarian, thus, they’re happier, more intimate, and freer than those couples who try to apply biblical manhood and womanhood rigidly to their relationships. Why? Because hierarchy and predetermined marriage, gender, and ministry roles set couples up for resentment, distance, isolation, inauthenticity, and power struggle with one another. 

I’ve worked with lots of young couples on both sides of the spectrum of complementarianism and egalitarianism, but in my work with couples middle-aged and older, I’ve predominantly work with couples who’ve practiced complementarianism and its outworkings for 20-30 years who are frustrated, who are seeing: This is not working. This has not worked. We are halfway through a lifetime together and no better at resolving conflict, sharing decisions, figuring out our sex life, figuring out how to be happy together, or knowing what to do with our shame, resentment, guilt, hostility, and lack of emotional intimacy with one another.

Research backs this up, too, in its look at traditional arrangements in a modern world versus an egalitarian approach to marriage. 

In the 1980s, when David Olsen was doing his research that’s now encompassed in the Prepare-Enrich curriculum, he found that couples who perceived their relationship as egalitarian were qualitatively happier: 81% compared to 19% who reported being unhappy in their marriages. Strikingly, when both husband and wife abide by traditional roles, 18% reported being happy, compared to 82% of couples who reported being unhappy. In 2002, Jennifer Finlayson-Fife found that women who didn’t subscribe to traditional gender ideologies, or who said they did but actually didn’t in the way they organized their relationships—who were actually more egalitarian in practice—were healthier and freer in their sexual agency than those who practiced traditional gender roles. And in 2006, Heather Helms did a study that concluded that spouses who follow stereotyped gender roles tend to have marriages that are reportedly less satisfying and happy than couples with more egalitarian roles. 

Now, here’s what I’ve seen in my practice and why I’m so passionate about this topic and why I want to educate couples on what’s healthy and leads to wholeness. 

1. It seems like gender roles are being emphasized over Jesus. And the prescriptions feel unfair, based on their strengths and personalities; unbalanced, based on their workloads between work and home; and un-Christlike, in that one or both partners is more concerned with trying to play a certain part than with loving their partner and trying to connect on an intimate level, rather than a role-based one. 

2. Christian men are experiencing suffocating amounts of pressure, not only in their expectations for themselves, but in the shame they feel when they can’t or don’t measure up to one of these complementarian standards. A husband loses a job, another struggles with mental illness, another doesn’t know what to do with the fact that his wife makes more than him, another is overworked and burnt out, but doesn’t have any sort of frame in which to put those things. Instead, he says to himself because of what he’s been taught, “I should be better than this. I’m ashamed and embarrassed. I’m weak. I’m not holding up my side as a man. I need to man up.” All of which make the pressure worse, not better, by the way. Oh, and sometimes, not always, the wife is laying that message on him, too, because guess what? They’re buying into what they’ve heard at church or through unhealthy Christian teaching. Men, in this framing are taught that they’re weak and unworthy, when really, they’re just human. As James would say, “brothers and sisters, this ought not to be.” There ought to be kindness and grace and support built into our teachings so that when life inevitably happens and roles inevitably shift, men’s self-esteem and self-respect don’t plummet, leaving him to be able to do less of that which he desires to do for his wife and his family. 

3. Christian women are experiencing loads of guilt and resentment as they blame their partners for not living up to the unrealistic expectations placed on Christian men in complementarianism, and then the guilt comes for disrespecting their husbands and getting angry with them for reasons perpetuated by complementarian views themselves! Do you see how this could be a crazy-making cycle for wives? Because not only does she cycle through thoughts of, “He makes me so angry, but I just need to love and respect him better,” she herself has no sense of inner stability or strength. Why? Because she’s been taught that her stability and strength lies in her husband. That if she exhibits strength, she’s doing it wrong. So instead, she needs to manipulate herself, oh, and her partner to get him to become who she wants him to be, which is, who she’s been told he’s supposed to be in the Complementarian view. But she’s a human, too! So of course, she has agency and personhood—those are God’s gifts to her, just like her husband! But either she won’t recognize her agency in the marriage, winding up in a really underdeveloped state for an adult woman, or she’ll subconsciously use her agency in unhealthy ways to try and fit herself or her husband into a mold that likely doesn’t fit, or is just plain unhealthy. So here, we need teaching, Church, that encourages Christian women, wives, and mothers—all people, really, to grow up into Christ, who is the head, not to be stunted in their growth by leaning too heavily on their husbands, who were not made to be their lords. 

Okay, I’m cutting myself off. We will have to stop here. But we’ve covered a lot, so feel free to connect and let me know your questions, considerations, all those types of things. And especially if you’re in church leadership, I would be more than happy to have a conversation about how to more effectively help the couples you serve. That we both serve in complementary ways. I’m not on social media, but you can find my website in the show notes and my email and contact form from there. Alright? Thanks for being here. Thanks for your engagement this season. I’m Kensi Duszynski. Podcast editing is by Evan Duszynski. Music is by John Tibbs. Have a great couple of weeks and I’ll talk to you again soon.