The Fundamental Flaw of Complementarianism

John Piper also decided that evangelicalism’s #MeToo movement was a good time to defend patriarchy. In a Desiring God podcast recorded in March 2018, he blamed egalitarianism for leaving women vulnerable.

Complementarianism charged men “to care for and protect and honor women,” but Christian and non-Christian egalitarians had stripped women of that protection.

Jesus and John Wayne, Kristin Kobes Du Mez

What is at the heart of complementarianism?

I understand fully that some people are better suited for particular roles than others. I actually talk about this a lot in ministry regarding gifts for ministry. There are those who are gifted for and passionate about making a difference in the lives of children. They should be in children’s ministry in some capacity. There are those who love to sit and visit with people. They should be in some kind of caring ministry.

I believe firmly that everyone is called to and gifted for some kind of ministry, which, consequently, means that they are NOT gifted and called for other kinds of ministry.

I have a strong suspicion that one of the major reasons (granted, not the only one) why youth pastor burnout is so high (last I checked, the average youth pastor lasts about 18 months) is because so many people are thrust into youth ministry without really have a gifting or a passion for it.

But what complementarianism does is take this understanding that everybody is called to a particular type of ministry that suits their gifting and passion best and generalize it in such a way that “all men” fit into one category while “all women” fit into another. It makes certain giftings and outlets for ministry gender-based, which is completely ridiculous.

I’ve seen a lot of comments on the internet (because… it’s the internet) about how women shouldn’t be pastors. But the fact of the matter is I have a number of very capable, gifted, passionate and talented female colleagues. The very idea that they shouldn’t following their God-given calling because they are female is ludicrous, and there are a lot of faith traditions that are worse off because of this outdated belief.

On the surface, you could argue that complementarianism does exactly what we see above; that it charges men “to care for and protect and honor women” which sounds noble, right? Very “knight in shining armor” kind of image going on here. But, of course, this begs the question: from whom? From whom do women need to be protected? Why should there be an explicit directive to care for and honor women?

Here’s the thing: if women need protection (this alone assumes that women can’t take care of themselves in the first place), it’s going to be from men more often than it’s going to be from other women. How often do we hear about women being abducted by other women? How often are women abused and murdered by their female partners? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I’m saying it doesn’t happen nearly as often.

The biggest threat facing women is men. And so, what? We’re supposed to convince women that men are their protectors when men are, in reality, the cause of most of the dangers they face? This is insane.

Complementarianism is fundamentally flawed because it charges men to protect women… from men. But, perhaps, women are victimized by men so much because men are given this complementarian foundation that says women are inherently inferior, weaker and are supposed to be subservient. It shapes their perspective on women, which then leads to a greater rate of victimization.

Egalitarianism, on the other hand, recognizes that there are differences between people, but still focuses on the fact that all people are equal. Isn’t that what we read in Scripture in the first place? Those who champion complementarianism conveniently overlook the Scriptures that talk about equality, like Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11. What these Scriptures point out is that the barriers between people are taken down because of the new life that is possible in Christ.

And so, if more people subscribe to an egalitarian point of view, then perhaps they would see how all people are equal in the eyes of God, and therefore, there would be no such need for domination of the so-called “weaker” sex – not to mention this would also necessarily lead to the demise of racism, classism, and any other kind of “-ism” that threatens to separate people from one another.

Yes, people are created differently, but this doesn’t mean there is a blanket statement that can be applied to one particular aspect of personhood. We live on a spectrum. We all have different giftings and callings, strengths and weaknesses. No two people are exactly alike. Even identical twins are different. And the sooner we recognize the equality that exists among all humanity, the better off we are going to be.