Wounds of a Friend

In this month's Christianity Today, complementarian (men and women have equal but different roles in marriage and church life - W) John Koessler and egalitarian (God freely calls believers to roles and ministries regardless of gender, class or race - W) Sarah Sumner have an "unexpected exchange" on the women's leadership debate.

Complementarians need to recover a fully biblical view of women — and of handling theological disagreement. By John Koessler

Egalitarians should rely more on careful exegesis and less on political ideologies. By Sarah Sumner

Both articles are refreshing and graceful additions to the conversation and I found plenty to agree with on both sides of the discussion.

When God created humankind in his image, he created them to be male and female (Gen. 1:27). It is often said that men and women bear the image of God equally. But it might be more accurate to say that men and women bear God's image together. Men and women collectively reflect the divine image; one without the other is incomplete. In addition, the Book of Genesis affirms men and women's joint mandate to exercise dominion over creation. Men and women share this responsibility; neither can fulfill God's mandate alone. ...

Complementarians need to be on guard against the temptation to use the Bible as a sanction for social constructs. The Pharisees tried to protect God's commands by putting a fence around the Law. I fear that complementarians, too, have gone beyond the Scriptures in our effort to preserve God's design. Have we added our own traditions to the Bible's teaching in an attempt to preserve biblical manhood and womanhood?

John Koessler

Egalitarians often argue that since God commands his people to submit to one another, women leaders have the right to be submitted to by men. When this doesn't happen, they feel angry. Yet a truly Christian ethic would remember that women have the duty, not the right, to lead as God calls them to lead. When God calls a woman to step forward, she is to step forward, regardless of how others respond. ...

When Galatians 3:28 is used out of context, the egalitarian argument can easily be perceived as promoting a genderless church. Though most egalitarians emphatically believe that men and women are not the same or interchangeable, it is hard for the unconvinced to hear the wisdom of their message— and easy for others, like the gender-confused, to twist the meaning of their message into something it is not.

Sarah Sumner

Christianity Today's Timothy George also addressed complementarians and egalitarians in his excellent article 'A Peace Plan for the Gender War'.

I'm sympathetic to George's stated position 'I am not a card-carrying member of either party', finding plenty to agree with on both sides and probably falling somewhere in the middle of the debate. However, realistically, I know I'd fit in more easily on the egalitarian side, given my openness to women in church leadership roles. Also I personally feel more confident of having the opportunity in an egalitarian setting to argue in a complementarian direction, than I'm confident of being able to even talk about a egalitarian direction from a complementarian position. Whether you understand what I mean may depend on your experiences with both sides of the debate, whether positive or negative.