Christian marriage

The Blessed Alliance w/ Carolyn Custis James - Ep. 140

SHOW NOTES:

Carolyn Custis James talks to us about The Blessed Alliance; the real purpose of the marriage between men and women in light of the mission of God; and the Bible as a foreign text set in the context of patriarchy. It’s a conversation you don’t want to miss!

RESOURCE LINKS:

carolyncustisjames.com

Malestrom: Manhood Swept into the Currents of a Changing World

Half the Church: Recapturing God’s Global Vision for Women

When Life and Beliefs Collide: How Knowing God Makes a Difference

The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough to Break the Rules

Podcast Editing by: Evan Duszynski

Music by: John Tibbs

Another Look at Ephesians 5 - Ep. 138

SHOW NOTES:

When read in light of Aristotle’s household codes, Ephesians 5 means something completely different than what we’ve made it mean today. If Christ is the head and collectively, we are the body and bride of Christ, what does this mean for the way we live out our faith, our family relationships, and our fellowship with the family of God?

If you’ve learned something new here and are enjoying this series on “Marriage, Mutuality, and Gender Roles,” please leave a rating & review!

Podcasting by: Kensi Duszynski, MA, LMFT, CPC

Editing by: Evan Duszynski, MA

Music by: John Tibbs

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Hey friends, welcome back this week to the Brave Marriage Podcast. If you’re just joining us, we’re in the middle of a series on Marriage, Mutuality, and Gender Roles, and so far, we’ve covered the history of Christian marriage in the modern word, mid-century teachings on Christian marriage, for better or worse, we’ve talked to a few couples who would consider themselves mutualists or egalitarians, and a few weeks ago, we took a look at what Genesis 1–3 has to say about marriage, mutuality, and gender roles, so if you haven’t taken a listen to that, you can find it, it’s episode 136. And today, we’re taking a look at the infamous Ephesians 5 passage to see what Paul has to say about marriage, mutuality, and gender roles. 

I gave a talk a few weeks ago to Asbury’s gender equality club on the differences between a male headship model of marriage and a true partnership model of marriage, and as some of the students and I got to talking at the end, one thing that came up was how in evangelical Christianity, we can tend to pick and choose Paul’s words based on what we want him to say, without realizing that Paul’s letters to the Colossians, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, Timothy—they are not letters primarily about marriage or gender roles, they are letters to the earliest Christ followers on Christian living in that time and culture, based on the teachings and ministry of Christ! In all of Paul’s teaching, unlike ours a lot of times, His theology and Christology is rich. 

But today, or it seems to me since the ‘70s and even more so in the ‘90s and early 2000s, we the church have gotten caught up in cherry-picking parts of Paul’s writing that apply specifically to marriage and qualifications for ministry in that time and culture, while neglecting to whole of Paul’s writings, which are relaying a foundation for the Christian faith, based on the teachings, ministry, and life of Jesus Christ, encouraging each of the early churches to remember that they are family, that together, they make up the body and bride of Christ, and that together, Christ has called us to unity, to be one—not a false unity, where people in the church are peacekeepers rather than peacemakers, not a false unity, where people aren’t allowed to think or discern or discuss truth amongst themselves, but a differentiated unity, where each member of the body is valued because of what he or she brings spiritually, and where each member is allowed to be whom God created him or her to be, while at the same time, living in righteousness and right relationship with God and with each other. It’s only after putting Christ above all else that Paul then gives specific instructions to each particular church on how they are to live, based on what they’re struggling with in their cultural contexts. 

In the episode I did on Genesis 1-3, the question we asked at the end was, if God is good, if He is loving, if He created us with full equality and co-rulership over creation, then how, as Christian couples who await the return of Christ, should we live in the here and now? Well, after Jesus ascended after his earthly ministry and left us with the Holy Spirit who helps us and empowers us to be the kingdom of God on earth, Paul spent the rest of his life trying to tell various people and churches how to do just that. And so I believe we could be helped by taking a look at how Jesus taught us to do that before reading Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

As mentioned in episode 136, when the religious leaders came to test Jesus to ask which of God’s commandments was the greatest, Jesus replied in Matthew 22:36-40: “‘Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

In John 13, Jesus tells us to love and serve one another. 

In John 15:12, He said, “My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you.” 

Are you seeing a theme here? Jesus’ heart and vision for the church was much bigger than the nuclear family. His desire was that people of every tribe, tongue, and nation, Jew, Gentile, slave, free, rich, poor, male, female, would know God, love Him, serve Him, and follow His example. We’ll talk in a little while about what Jesus had to say about marriage, but what I want us to understand is that Jesus was concerned with the whole world, and especially the least of these. That His kingdom be expanded in an upside down way, at least, from what we’re all too familiar with in the world. 

In John 17, in His prayer for His followers, His church, His bride, Jesus declares Himself as having authority over all mankind. He prays for those who believe in Him to have eternal life, that they may know God the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Himself who glorified God while on earth by accomplishing the work the Father had given him to do. 

Then He asks the Father, He says in verse 11-12: “I am no longer going to be in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, so that they may be one just as We are,” moving to verse 22, “that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and You loved them, just as You loved Me.” 

Are you seeing a theme here? 

Okay, so Jesus’ teachings are what Paul has on the forefront of his mind when he writes his letters to the earliest churches, including his letter to the Ephesians. In fact, Paul instructs the churches to love one another as often as Jesus did, and what’s more is that he gives the Church instructions for how to treat one another on 59 different occasions, which one author, Robert Sang, has broken down into 4 themes: love, unity, humble servanthood, and edification and encouragement. 

I’ll link his article and this next list in the full transcript on my website, but this is how we are to treat one another as believers as the body and bride of Christ. We are all, as one body, instructed to live in the following ways with one another:

With love, honor, devotion, harmony, encouragement, acceptance, admonishment, teaching, care, service, confession, forgiveness, patience, truth, kindness, compassion, submission, humility, forbearance, prayer, comfort, exhortation, edification, hospitality, likemindedness, stewardship of our spiritual gifts for the sake of one another, and mutually spurring one another on to love and good works. 

Thus, having started with the teachings of Jesus, which informed the teachings of Paul as he relayed them to various churches, it’s from this place that I want us to come to the book of Ephesians. 

In Ephesians chapter 1, Paul recounts the goodness of God, the blessing of redemption, and the headship of Christ in verse 22. In Ephesians 2-4, Paul reminds the church that all of them, Jews and Gentiles alike, are saved by faith in Jesus Christ so that no one should boast about their righteousness, their privileges, or any religious or cultural entitlements. Rather, Paul wants the early church in Ephesus to understand that unity and oneness are the priority, and that everyone is responsible for stewarding their spiritual gifts and building up the body of Christ. Everyone is responsible for leaving hardness of heart and sin behind them, and instead, walking together as one, just the way Christ taught us and prayed for us before he died, so that the church may be built up as a place for the Spirit of God to dwell, and as signpost for the world at-large, that they may know Jesus—just as Jesus prayed in John 17. 

In Ephesians 3, Paul talks about his work on behalf of the Gentile believers, helping them understand the mystery of Christ and the Church—that the Gentiles, like the Jews, are fellow heirs and members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise. Remember the promise that God made when He told the serpent He’d send His Son to make a way for all of humanity, for those who believe, to be reconciled with Him? This—Christ—is the mystery that’s recently been revealed to believers in the 1st century AD. 

In Ephesians 4, Paul turns from a recap of Christian theology, to instructions for Christian practice. Paul tells the Ephesian church to walk in a manner worthy of their callings in Christ, so that every member of the church might mature and grow up into Him who is the head, that is, Christ. 

Are you getting a good picture of these metaphors? Christ is the head; we are His body. Paul has now emphasized this twice. Christ is the bridegroom; we are the bride. His desire for us is oneness, unity, togetherness, that we might serve Him, and point to Him, by mutually submitting to one another. 

This is the mystery of the Gospel that Paul is referring to. That in Christ, we are no longer Jew nor Gentile (Eph. 3:4-6), man nor woman (Eph. 5:31-32), slave nor free (Eph. 6:9)—we are one. 

So, given Paul’s culture, he gives instructions for how various culturally hierarchical relationships should operate—husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters. But counter to his culture, Paul boldly proclaims a different household code, and then in chapter 6, asks the Ephesian church for prayer, that he might keep boldly proclaiming this mystery of the Gospel and its radically countercultural implications!

So get this, here’s what I mean by household code: The Greco-Roman culture had their own hierarchical structure for family life, known as paterfamilias, a Latin word for “male head of the household.” This meant that families were structured with husbands as heads of households and owners of family estates, unless a woman was single and had inherited an estate herself. And culturally, their household codes were based on the teachings of Greek philosophers', which structured authority in the family and in society, hierarchically. Aristotle, in particular, called this the science of household management, basing his ideas on the belief that only the culturally dominant male was fully rational, whereas everyone else had lesser deliberative and reasoning capacities. To quote Aristotle in work, Politics: “the slave has not got the deliberative part at all…the woman has it, but without full authority…[and] the child has it, but in an underdeveloped form.” 

Now, I’d heard about the ancient household codes that families, or paterfamilias, abided by during this time, but I’d never taken the time to read Aristotle’s translated writing until a couple of weeks ago. So I want to read parts of Politics to you so that you can see for yourself how radically different Paul’s teaching to the Ephesian church was. 

From Book 1 [1259a]:

“And since, as we saw, the science of household management has three divisions, one the relation of master to slave, of which we have spoken before, one the paternal relation, and the third the conjugal—for it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government)…[1259b] …for the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female (except in some cases where their union has been formed contrary to nature) and the older and fully developed person than the younger and immature. 

Aristotle goes on to say that a man rules over his children as a monarch, whereas a man rules over his wife as an interactive republic, yet with the permanency of husband as ruler, and the wife as ruled; same for master and slave. The logic here is, men, women, children, and slaves have different reasoning capacities and moral virtues which determine the positions they hold within the domestic economy. Furthermore, the point of this social structure is, very clearly, what Aristotle calls, “the art of wealth-getting.” He says that all are needed within this economy to play their appropriate parts, because without male rulers to delegate, wives to focus exclusively on domestic and administrative duties, and slaves to carry out manual labor and other menial tasks within the household, the household system will fail to operate in a way that makes the art of wealth-getting inefficient and unproductive. But Aristotle does ruminate over whether or not everyone within the household is a full human being…and here’s what he concludes: 

Book 1 [1260a]:

“It is evident therefore that both must possess virtue, but that there are differences in their virtue (as also there are differences between those who are by nature ruled). 

…Hence there are by nature various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man the child in a different way. …Hence it is manifest that all the personas mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same…one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination…”

I don’t know about you, but the Greco-Roman household codes sound a lot like the logic behind Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to me, which is disappointing because we’re thousands of years from Aristotle and yet, his and others’ ideas linger, despite research, modernity, and common sense totally refuting them. Nonetheless, this is the philosophical and familial context in which Paul was delivering a Christ-centered message to the Jews and the Gentiles. 

So with an understanding of the hierarchical household codes, which were in place for economic efficiency, political gain, and designed for the art of wealth-getting, we now return to Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 5:1-2:

[Verse 1-2]: “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us…”

So, God’s example is love for His children and we are to walk in His ways. How do we do that? Well, take Christ, for example, the Son of God who came in human form, took on flesh, loved us as God does, and laid down His life that we might live. Jesus did not concern himself with political gain or wealth-building; rather, He explicitly taught and modeled that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That is how we, as men and women, are to live as the church, loving each other and laying down our lives for one another, as the metaphorical representation of the body and bride of Christ.

Ephesians 5:3-7: 

[Verse 3-7]: “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. There should not be obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure, or greedy person…has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (remember, we got a picture of that kingdom in Revelation 22, with the throne of the Lamb and of God in the city of the tree of life). Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Do not be partners with them.”

Okay, let’s think about this. Let’s think about what kinds of sexual immorality are being exposed in evangelical church leadership right now. Let’s think about the impurity that goes on between couples even in marriage, as Hebrews 13:4 says. Let’s think about the greed and vanity metrics that are often sought after in Christian circles. Or the obscenity or foolish talking (of which I, myself, have been guilty) or the coarse joking that goes on (of which others have been guilty, like telling members of the body of Christ “to go home”). Equally as serious as the instructions Paul gives for how husbands and wives are to live in marriage, Paul says, no immoral, impure, or greedy person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God, just as Jesus told the religious leaders and Pharisees in Matthew 23, among other places! This is serious business, but conveniently, this gets forgotten by the time we get to Ephesians 5:22.

That’s why, as the Church, we have to talk about these things openly and honestly. So that we can confess our sins and grow in maturity and into him, who is the head, Christ. 

Ephesians 5:8, 11-13:

[Verse 8; 11-13]: “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light and find out what pleases the Lord…. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It’s shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret, but everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.”

Now, this is a refrain from how Paul starts his instructions for Christian living in Ephesians 4:17-25. And we’re going to leave the middle of chapter 5 for a moment to understand what Paul wrote in chapter 4. In chapter 4, Paul says, essentially, do not live as those who listen to Aristotle’s teachings live. They’re darkened in understanding and separated from God due to the hardness of their hearts. They’ve given themselves over to sensuality, impurity, and they are full of greed. But that is not the teaching of Christ or obedience to the Truth that is in Jesus. 

And if this language sounds familiar to you, it’s because Paul, in chapter 4, is using the language of Jesus to talk to the church in Ephesus. Let’s take a look at Jesus’ conversation with the Jewish religious elite in Matthew 19:3-8

“Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?’ And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” They said to Him, ‘Why, then, did Moses give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”

In other words, everything may be permissible, but not everything is beneficial, especially when you are to be living as one in Jesus Christ. So you can structure your families and paterfamilias as the Greco-Roman household codes instruct. But know that as Christ-followers, you are called to something different, a different way of life! You’ve been given a new life, a new self, so put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore, Paul says in Ephesians 4:25, each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.

And what does Paul say about being one body? Oh yeah, that Christ, the head, gave the church, the members of his body, new life, new status, new legacy, and gifts to equip his people for works of service, until we all reach unity in the faith and in knowledge of the Son of God. And Paul says in 4:14 that once we, Christ’s body, live like this, then we will no longer be infants in our understanding of Scripture, but we will be mature, full grown ups in Christ, who is the head. So whether we’re male, female, black, white, rich, poor, do you think that Christ desires for us to be an immature, greedy, underdeveloped body? No, chapter 4 verse 16 says that from Christ, the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting part, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

This is a very different model from the art of wealth-getting that Aristotle describes, where humans are thought of not entirely equally, but hierarchically according to Aristotle’s philosophy of people’s mental capacities. In Greco-Roman culture, the family is structured: husband-wife-child-slave. But in Christ, according to Paul’s letter, the family is structured: Christ-Church. Period. We are one, all of us seen as children and valued members of His household, His kingdom. 

And if one, then this is how we are to live. Paul addresses everyone in the church at Ephesus as dearly loved children, asking them, as a parent would ask siblings to be kind to one another, to sacrifice for one another, and to submit to one another in love for the sake of the family of God, and in submission to Jesus Christ, our Lord. 

Furthermore, in contrast to Aristotle’s teaching, Paul does not disrespect women, children, or slaves at that time by talking to the men in the church about them.

Instead, after calling them siblings and children and God, Paul totally subverts Aristotle’s pairings, his three divisions of household management, by directly addressing wives first, and husbands second, giving husbands nearly double the instructions for Christian living. Paul then addresses children first and fathers second, and in chapter 6, slaves first and masters second—reminding all that God does not show favoritism. Just as Jesus would’ve done. And Paul, even in his teaching and writing, is modeling the way of Christ in laying down his place as a Jewish man and Roman citizen in that culture by directly engaging women, children, and the cultural “least of these.” 

Jumping to Ephesians 5:21-24:

[Verse 21-24]: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, (submit yourselves) to your own husbands as (you do) to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 

Now, how is Christ the head of the church? Well, I’ll tell you what, he doesn’t proclaim his status in any sort of entitled way or come down on others, except when speaking Truth to those who are acting entitled, proud, and hypocritical, as He does in Matthew 23. Instead, Christ is the head of the church in that He modeled what He told us in Matthew 23:11-12, that “the greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Just as Paul wrote Christ was, in Philippians 2:3-9, when he said:

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness…therefore God exalted him to the highest place…”

This is how Christ is the head of the church. In other words, when Paul says “the husband is the head of the wife” or “wives, submit to your own husbands,” we tend to stop our reading there rather than completing Paul’s thoughts. The actual phrase is “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, which Paul goes on to explain. In other words, “Your cultural context is telling you that your husband is the head of the household, and this is nothing new to you. But what I’m telling you is that, husbands, you are to demonstrate your headship, or your privilege as paterfamilia, in the same way that Christ demonstrated his headship with you. He didn’t lord it over you. He didn’t pride himself on leading you well. Instead, he made himself nothing, caring more about people than profit, more about being faithful to the least of these than being first, and more about subverting cultural expectations and challenging the worst in human nature than sanctifying cultural expectations and the worst in human nature. 

Therefore, husbands were to radically love their wives in the same way Christ did, in submission to her; while wives were to radically respect their husbands, from a place of full personhood, as they would Christ, in submission to him. 

Ephesians 5:25-30:

[Verses 25-30]: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves His wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of His body.” 

Now, I did a word study, as Haley mentioned in our last episode, where we got to see what mutuality in marriage looks like in real life. And in my word study, using an interlinear Bible that puts the Greek above the English translation, where it talks about us being members of His body, in the Greek, it actually reads something like, “for members we are of the body of Him of the flesh of him and of the bones of him.”

Then we come to verse 31:

[Verse 31]: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” 

Paul is always talking about Christ and the Church, because the Bible is a love story about God’s love for His people and the life-giving relationality and spirituality we find in Him and in relationship with each other. 

And I love this, the interconnectedness of the biblical emphasis on love and oneness, from being introduced to God and his plans for men and women and marriage in the book of Genesis, to reading about God’s faithfulness and fidelity in books like Song of Solomon, Hosea, and Malachi, to being introduced to Jesus and His heart for marriage in the book of Matthew, and finally, for Paul’s emphasis on the bride’s unity and oneness in Christ. And even though Paul was single, and preferred that we all be like him in single-minded devotion to Christ, he takes the time to present a picture of what marriage should look like when starting from a place of mutual submission out of reverence for, and service to, God.

Now in episode 136, we talked about how male headship and hierarchy were introduced after the Fall, nowhere reflected in creation or the original state. But again, to borrow some of my husband Evan's words, because I think he describes this passage well when talking to students: Patriarchy is a result of sin and we still live under its effects today. But in Christ, we are to steward our privilege—just as Jesus did, and just as Paul did—to lay down our lives for others so that they may be empowered, and so that there might be relational equity, so that together, we can model kingdom marriages, living in mutual submission, mutual love and respect, and in differentiated unity, as we were created to from the beginning. 

To conclude Paul’s letter, after he gives instructions for the way Christian children and fathers and slaves and masters are to live, Paul concludes:

Ephesians 6:10-17:

[Verses 10-11]: Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 

And what are the devil’s schemes? We talked about those as well in episode 136. 

[Verses 12-15]: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that come from the Gospel of peace.”

So again, Paul is subverting worldly, cultural expectations of Christ and His coming kingdom. Our fight is not against each other but against the hierarchical powers in this dark world and in the spiritual realm. Therefore, subverting what one would expect of battle, Paul tells the church to arm herself with what? With ammo, with sharp comebacks, with a spirit ready to fight? No, we as the Church, the body and bride of Christ, are to arm ourselves with truth, righteousness, and readiness for peace. That is to be our offense! And then Paul describes our defense:

[Verses 16-17]: In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” 

I hope you’re beginning to see how bold and radical this letter is that Paul has written. And that’s why he ends the letter by saying:

[Ephesians 6:18-20]: “Pray in the Spirit on all occasions…being alert and always keeping on praying for all the Lord’s people. Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.” 

Paul is not delivering a message similar to that of Aristotle, similar to those who promote male entitlement or female subordination, as in the church in Ephesus, nor is Paul promoting female entitlement and male subordination, as Haley mentioned last week, regarding Paul’s letter to Timothy. What Paul is doing is radically proclaiming the Good News in his cultural context. And he is crazily, self-sacrificially chasing freedom for people while he, himself, is in chains. 

I’ll leave you with similar questions as last time: Did anything stand out to you from the text that perhaps hadn’t before? How is this rendering of the book of Ephesians or of the Ephesians 5 passage different from the way you’ve perhaps been taught it in the past? And if the primary message of Jesus Christ is love for God and one another, and unity within the Church, what might this mean for you, your marriage, your family, your church, and your community? 

I’ll leave you with a benediction from the last sentence in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

“Peace to the brothers and sisters, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

This has been episode 138 of The Brave Marriage Podcast. I’m your host, Kensi Duszynski. Podcast Editing is by Evan Duszynski. Music is by John Tibbs. Have a great couple of weeks and stay tuned to hear Blake Dean and Erin Moniz talk about why mutuality matters. See you next time. 

Equality in Marriage & Ministry w/ Brandon & Haley Weaver - Ep. 137

Haley & Brandon Weaver

SHOW NOTES:

Brandon and Haley Weaver talk with us about growing up egalitarian, being introduced to complementarianism in college, and what equality in marriage and ministry look like from their perspective! If you enjoy this episode, please take a quick second to tap the stars below to leave a rating and review!

Podcast Editing by: Evan Duszynski, MA

Music by: John Tibbs

Egalitarianism - Ep. 135

Mutuality in Marriage

SHOW NOTES:

What is egalitarianism? How is it different from complementarianism? On this episode, we explore what true equality in Christ means for us all, and how it should lead us to mutuality—in the home, in the church, and in the world. If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the podcast!

To work with Kensi Duszynski, MA, LMFT, CPC, visit bravemarriage.com.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Hey there and welcome back to the Brave Marriage Podcast, where today, we’re talking about egalitarianism. My own personal journey from a complementarian perspective to a more egalitarian one has been a decade or more in the making. Part of the reason for that is, like I mentioned last time, through reading and study, I’d immersed myself in complementarian doctrine without even really realizing it. Even though I grew up in a church tradition where women could exercise their spiritual gifts as pastors, what I saw in practice were lots of traditional gender roles and more respect for male leadership than female leadership. So by the time I read I started reading complementarian authors, I just thought, this must be the Christian perspective, this is what we as Christians believe. Especially because in the books I was reading from the local Christian bookstore, which was supplied by a complementarian book distributor, none of the authors were saying, “This viewpoint is called complementarianism and it’s one interpretation of Scripture; we think it’s the best and most true view, but read Scripture for yourself, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you, and judge for yourselves which is right.” 

A second reason for my own personal shift was coming to a place in my life where I began to see beyond myself and my own circumstances, to really consider the experiences of others in the world, and how complementarianism and egalitarianism played out in others’ lives. Right, because of certain privileges my life circumstances have afforded me, I didn’t have to question the complementarian view (or the inherent issues built in to the position, as we talked about last week) because they didn’t affect me, personally in a negative way—at least, on a felt level, day-to-day. That doesn’t mean the issues weren’t there all along; it just means that my station in life prevented me from feeling them as others have, and continue to. 

And the third reason is that probably up until I was married, I didn’t know there was a distinctly defined, alternative viewpoint on men and women in marriage and ministry. I thought all of it—complementarian and egalitarian views—could co-exist and intermingle, all pointing to some aspect of God’s Truth, since as 1 Corinthians 13:12 says, “for now we see in a mirror dimly, knowing in part, but then we shall see face to face.” And of course I believe that’s true—that no one person or group holds all the answers—but I think the part about both positions that’s true is the part upon which both perspectives agree: that men and women are created equally, with complementarity, in the image of God. But other than that, I found myself as a Christian college and seminary grad, thinking there was no distinct alternative definition to complementarianism, much less a meaningful difference between whatever those two positions were. Not because I was taught anything remotely complementarian; I went to Wesleyan schools after all. But because between Old and New Testament, Christian Theology, and my Marriage and Family courses, the topic was never specifically taught (for a variety of reasons, I’m sure). 

But I remember hearing a peer in grad school refer to herself as egalitarian, not really knowing what that meant or how that was justified biblically because when you grow up being taught to fear anything that contrasts with hierarchy, traditional marriage roles, complementarianism, you initially hear alternative views with skepticism and fear, especially if some measure of your faith or Christian identity are bound up in extra-biblical ideas. Which is especially confusing, right, when you're taught that it’s biblical manhood and womanhood. But then, I heard the president’s wife of Asbury University publicly call herself an egalitarian and refer to her marriage as such. And it was those two experiences that made an impression on me because I realized they held a distinctly different position, but to be honest—I didn’t know what that was. (Which is wild to me, as I think about it now, because I consider some of the differences, matters of biblical truth and morality, and the difference between relational dysfunction and relational health and flourishing.)

So that’s what this episode is about: defining what egalitarianism is and taking a look at a few more differences between egalitarianism and complementarianism. And just so you know, there will be multiple episodes on egalitarian theology and the concept of mutuality, because there’s too much to share in one episode.  

Starting with a definition: Egalitarianism is the belief that both men and women are created equal in the image of God; not only in spiritual worth and dignity, but also in human worth and dignity and in spiritual calling. Egalitarians believe that spiritual giftedness and leadership are not assigned to individuals based on gender, but are gifted equally to the sons and daughters of God, regardless of race, class, culture, or gender. So rather than believing that there are no meaningful differences between men and women, egalitarians believe that God created male and female differently, both in His image, but that through Christ, and in Christ, there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female—for all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28)! 

Egalitarians have come to the realization, like Peter did in Acts 10, that God is not a God of partiality, even if we’d prefer that He be, or even if our own pride or self-deception leads us to believe that He is. 

Now, Christians have struggled with the equalizing effect of the message of the Gospel throughout history. Let me share the earliest example of this, as it pertains to Jews and Gentiles, recorded after Jesus’ ministry:

The apostle Peter, one of Jesus’ disciples, a Jew, like the other 11 disciples, and a man of middle Eastern descent, really wrestled with whether or not the Gentiles were to be considered clean, or as called to the message and ministry of the Gospel as Peter was. 

It literally took a vision from God and a visit from Cornelius, a God-fearing Gentile, to help Peter see his own bias and blind spots. But afterward, Peter declared what he’d learned to a large gathering of people around him, saying in verse 28 and 34:

“You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean…I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right.”

I love what’s written next in verses 44 and 47, both because God’s grace is so amazing and because the human condition is so hilariously predictable. Acts 10 says: “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.” Then, Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!” And thank God Peter realized this, right, because as Jesus told him, he was the rock upon which God would build His church.

So the early apostles worked to build up the body of Christ, to build up the church on the basis that all were one in Christ Jesus. And they taught the various churches that because of Jesus, humans of every tribe, tongue, and nation could receive the free gift of salvation, receive baptism and the Holy Spirit, and minister the message of the good news of Jesus Christ. Now that looked different depending on cultural context and location, but this was that radical, scandalous nature of the Gospel—that all are welcome, and that in God’s kingdom, the first are last, and the last are first. 

But like the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, who he curses throughout the Gospels, religious leaders throughout every century have found a way to use God’s Word to promote their own power and glory, not God’s. 

Take for example, moving to the slave or free clause, slave-owning Christians and those responsible for creating the slave Bible in 1807, where only about 10 percent of the Old Testament was included (leaving out any reference to the Israelites being delivered from bondage and slavery), and only about 50 percent of the New Testament was included (with Paul’s words to the Ephesians about slaves being obedient to their masters left in, but Paul’s words to the Galatians—that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus—being left out). 

This is horrendous to us now, that a group of people whom God loves and desires to save and pour out His Spirit on equally, would be read and taught the Bible in ways that supported the slave owners’ cause, rather than supporting their freedom and liberation as humans with worth and dignity. Rather than teaching, as Paul taught in Galatians, that there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. Rather than calling all believers to use their freedom to serve one another in love, not to oppress others or minimize others’ gifts or condemn others as somehow the inferior race, class, or sex. Right? These things have nothing to do with the message of the Gospel and everything to do with the spirit of the age and leaving cultural assumptions unquestioned. 

But as someone who came to see, like Peter, and as someone who helped others see, like Cornelius, abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this say about slave-holding American Christians:

“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked…. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land.”

Douglass here is noting a discrepancy between the message of Christianity according to Christ, and the message of Christianity according to western culture. 

So Peter, Cornelius, Paul, Frederick Douglass…they’re all defining aspects of the egalitarian position. The realization that using Scripture, abusing its authority, perverting its power, and defiling its beauty for the sake of dominating or oppressing other people is some sort of religion, but as Douglass said, it’s not the Christianity of Christ. 

The egalitarian position is the commitment to the Truth that all humans are created in the image of God; that God sent His Son to save everyone, equally; and that in Christ, there are no longer differences that divide us, as there once were before Christ came, but in Christ, we are free to be one and free to serve God and one another in love. 

What this looks like specifically in marriage, which we’ll talk more about in upcoming weeks, is essentially, the mission statement of Brave Marriage: growing as individuals, doing marriage with intention, and living mutually empowered, purposeful lives. It looks like sharing with one another—sharing power, leadership, truth, decision-making, work and household roles. It looks like supporting one another’s growth, rather than demanding it, on the one hand, or suppressing it, on the other. Egalitarianism in Christian marriage looks like mutually loving, sacrificing, serving, trusting, and respecting each other—not because that’s what you’re supposed to do, as husband and wife, but because you actually do, as a functional outworking of believing you’re equals, created for mutuality and intimacy from the beginning. 

In upcoming weeks, we’ll study Scripture together and we’ll talk to egalitarian couples, but for the rest of this episode, I want to help you better understand the differences between the egalitarian position and the complementarian one, both of which gained traction in the 1970s and formed official positions and organizations in the 1980s.  

So, just as last week, you learned about the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (or CBMW) who represent the complementarian position, this week, I want to introduce you to Christians for Biblical Equality (or CBE), who represent the egalitarian position. Last episode, you learned that those on the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood created the term “complementarian” to define a position of complementarity set within tradition and hierarchy. But unlike CBMW, CBE didn’t create the term egalitarian; instead, it was borrowed from political philosophy simply because of its encapsulation of equality between all people. Now, for this reason, I would like to air my complaints with both terms, as I see neither term as particularly helpful—complementarian being deceiving and egalitarian being misrepresentative, as the Gospel is not a political philosophy but primarily, the story of God and His love and relationship to us. 

Great, now that that’s off my chest, I’d like to take the rest of the episode to compare and contrast the beliefs, mission, vision, and values of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) with the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) so that you can begin to more clearly see the differences between the two. I think it’s important to know what each group believes, because that will inform the outworkings of the organizations themselves. 

According to their Statement of Faith, available at cbeinternational.org, Christians for Biblical Equality (or CBE) believe: 

Firstly and secondly, “…in one God, creator and sustainer of the universe, eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory…and in the full deity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ.

Now, these two points are important because they distinguish orthodox Christianity from heresy. And while CBMW’s statement of faith almost says the same thing, they omit the phrase, “eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory.” Here’s why that omission is important:

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Trinity, God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are eternally equal in power and glory. In seminary, one of my favorite things I learned about was Trinitarian theology, because that’s how God created my mind to work—systemically and relationally. So before Adam and Eve were created, there was the Triune God. And according to the Bible, starting with Genesis 1:26, and foundational to our Christian theology, God existed in relationship, three spiritual persons in one, equal in glory and power, and mutually indwelling each other; therefore, perfectly modeling this ideal of interdependence and relationality for us. It was Jesus’ humanity that led Him willfully to submit His will to the Father’s for a time, but orthodox Christianity maintains that Jesus was both fully God and fully human; therefore, his place and role among the Trinity is fully equal among the three. 

And to deny that teaching is to adhere to a 4th century heresy known as Arianism. Forgive me for nerding out on you for a moment, but Arius was a 4th century priest who began teaching the church that the Son was created by the Father, different in substance and role, and therefore, not co-eternal or co-equal. But if this were true, then that would effectively render Christ’s death and resurrection null and void in terms of saving us from our sins, because if Christ was created by God, lesser than God, and therefore, not fully divine and fully human as we believe he was, then his lack of humanity would’ve meant that Jesus couldn’t have been the substitutionary lamb who was slain for our sins. And if he wasn’t fully divine, then Jesus wouldn’t have had the power to save us from our sins. 

In other words, if the Son is not co-eternal and co-equal to the Father and Holy Spirit in power and glory, this would deem Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension as meaningless to the Christian faith. And yet, a version of this heresy has become a regular teaching and tenant of faith in some complementarian circles. While complementarian theology maintains that God is 3-in-1, some complementarians also maintain that God is 3-in-1 hierarchically, meaning they believe in God the Father, whose rule is sovereign and supreme over all; in Christ the Son, as the second person of the Trinity who reigns and rules over us but is eternally subordinate to the Father; and in the Holy Spirit, who lives inside of us. 

When I was a student at the Focus Leadership Institute, this 3-in-1 hierarchical theology was then laid overtop of the family, with husband as sovereign leader over the family, wife as subordinate helper, and children, said to be analogous to the third person of the Trinity, birthed out of the intimacy between husband and wife. 

But here’s the deal: to suggest that the Holy Spirit was somehow birthed out of the intimacy or procreativity of the Father and Son is heresy, as is the suggestion that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. In fact, in 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea, which is where the Nicene Creed originated, condemned Arius as a heretic of the Christian faith for this teaching and was exiled from the church!

In her book, The Making of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, historian Beth Allison Barr affirms the experience I had at Focus on the Family when she writes: 

By the end of the twentieth century, [this heresy] had a new twist: because Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father, wives are eternally subordinate to their husbands.” 

This is why understanding our doctrine, our theology, and our Christian heritage is so important. Because unless we do, we’re likely to repeat the sins of our past in current practice. In family therapy, we call this multigenerational transmission process, whereby the very thing we wish not to do, is what we do and carry forth into the next generation; that is, without intentionality, without history to guide us, and without the Holy Spirit to empower us to do something different. In their fifth statement, CBE believes that: 

…the Bible is the inspired word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.”

And this statement of faith comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17, where Paul writes: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

With slightly different terminology, CMBW believes:

…that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inspired by God and inerrant in the original writings, and that they alone are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.”

By inerrant, they mean that the Bible is without error or fault in all its teaching, often equating inerrancy with a literal interpretation of Scripture. But biblical inerrancy seems to apply most dogmatically to Paul’s instructions to certain churches when it comes to marriage and ministry, but not so much when it comes to other passages, like permanently changing the words in Genesis 3:16 to mean something entirely different—from “your desire shall be for your husband” to “your desire shall be contrary to your husband.”

Historian Beth Allison Barr also takes issue with the concept of inerrancy and modern-day Arianism when she writes: 

It should also not surprise us that evangelicals resurrected Arianism for the same reason that evangelicals turned to inerrancy: If Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father, women’s subordination becomes much easier to justify…

Except it is still heresy. Arianism repackaged,” (p. 195).

In their remaining four statements, CBE believes:

…that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation; men and women are equally responsible for and distorted by sin, resulting in shattered relationships with God, self, and others; the Holy Spirit equips us for service and sanctifies us from sin; eternal salvation and restored relationships are only possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people.

Here, CBE’s statement of faith includes the most prominent difference between the two positions, in that egalitarians believe that in the beginning, God created male and female, different in gender, yet equal in worth, role, and function; whereas complementarian believe that in the beginning, God created male, then female, different in gender, gender identity, and specific gender roles and functions, yet equal in spiritual worth. Tim and Anne Evans affirm a view of marriage equality in their book, Together: Reclaiming Co-Leadership in Marriage, when they write: 

People with different marriage perspectives (male rulership, traditional-hierarchical-complementarian, and egalitarian) all agree that both men and women are made in the image of God—they are intrinsically equal. However, male rulership and traditional-hierarchical-complementarian proponents would say men and women are not functionally equal. Egalitarian marriage proponents would align with God’s creational marriage design. They believe men and women are intrinsically equal and functionally equal because in the beginning both the man and the woman were given the dominion and procreation mandates,” (p. 127-128). 

(And next episode, we’ll do a deeper dive into the Creation and Fall accounts).

Next point: according to CBE, it’s the Holy Spirit who equips us for all service and sanctifies us from sin as we grow in faith in Christ; but according to CBMW, it’s redemption in Christ, period, which restores husbands to loving leadership and wives to intelligent, willing submission, period. But as we’ll see next week, Jesus says no such thing when asked about marriage, nor does this ideology accurately reflect the sum of Paul’s letters and teaching, either. 

Here’s CBMW’s statement of faith in this regard: 

We believe that God, the transcendent Creator of all things in heaven and earth, created Adam and Eve in His own image; that they sinned, and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is alienation from God; the universal sinfulness and guilt of all men and women since the Fall renders them subject to God’s wrath and condemnation. Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood. Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall and was not a result of sin. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationship between men and women but redemption in Christ restores this relationship. In the home husbands are lovingly to lead their wives and wives should intelligently and willingly submit to their husbands. In the church, some governing and teaching roles are restricted to men.” 

We won’t have time to break that one down, but just notice that they believe in marital headship as set forth in creation, with the distortion of that relationship being righted through redemption in Christ. On our next episode, we’ll basically have a Bible Study where we look at what Genesis 1-3 and Ephesians 5 have to say, and at some of the original language (at least in Hebrew, I didn’t take Greek). 

Okay, so I hope you can see the differences in the way Christians for Biblical Equality commit to Scripture compared to the way the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood commits to Scripture. 

Take CBMW’s mission and vision for example, which I’ve shortened here but linked in the full transcript, which is to…

“…set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women…because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church…and to see the vast majority of evangelical homes, churches, academic institutions, and other ministries adopt the principles of the Danvers Statement as a part of their personal convictions and doctrinal confessions…

And if you’re just joining us for this episode, we examined what the Danvers Statement actually says in episode 134. By contrast:

CBE exists to promote the biblical message that God calls women and men of all cultures, races, and classes to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world. CBE's mission is to eliminate…theological patriarchy. CBE envisions a future where all believers are freed to exercise their gifts for God’s glory and purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities.”

One aims to defend, one aims to advocate. 

One aims to maintain power, one aims to share power.

One aims to serve cultural Christianity, one aims to serve Christ globally. 

One aims to instill obedience and fear, one aims to set people free—men, women, singles, couples, and their Christian communities.

A few final questions to leave you with today as we prepare to take a look at Scripture together next time:

  • When was the last time you read Genesis 1-3 for yourself?

  • When was the last time you read the book of Ephesians for yourself? 

  • When it comes to viewing yourself as a son or daughter of God, a co-heir with Christ, with gifts of the Holy Spirit, to be stewarded alongside your husband, wife, or male or female counterparts, what do you personally have to fear? What might you collectively have to gain? And what might you—personally or collectively—have to lose? 

  • When it comes to your own marriage, what might mutuality look like? How might your marriage look different if you two believed that you were created male and female, equal in worth and dignity, free to share thoughts and feelings, roles, decision-making, spirituality, and intimacy? 

  • What might your multigenerational legacy be if you both saw yourselves as God sees you?

Thank you for listening to the Brave Marriage Podcast. I’m your host, Kensi Duszynski. Podcast editing is by Evan Duszynski. Music is by John Tibbs. I’d love to hear from you between episodes, but I’ll be back with the next one in two weeks. Until then, take care, talk soon. 

Complementarianism - Ep. 134

unsplash-image-9n1wmYe5sUQ.jpg

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.