Note: This paper was presented at Bethel University on February 21, 2009 for “Imagining the Future: The Reconciled Community“, a sociological conference on reconciliation. The goal was to explore the egalitarian/complementarian debate and see if there is hope for reconciliation in the church. This will be presented in a series over the next few weeks.

Examining the Expressions of Egalitarian and Complementarian Views of Gender in the Local Church

Introduction

While society continues to explore the postmodern questions about gender and sex identity and roles, the Church is engaged in what is, at best, a dialogue and what can be, at worst, a divisive controversy. It is well-known that the egalitarian position takes the “giftedness-not-gender” approach to understanding feminine roles and their perceptions in the local church. By contrast, complementarianism has taken for its stance that both giftedness and gender (and, some would add, grace) determine feminine roles in the life of the local church.

As it stands, however, few have undertaken to display and understand the dialogue and explore how each of these views can express itself in the context of the local church. Like any issue of church polity, this is not simply a matter of doctrine or opinion, but of functional and Scriptural significance in everyday workings of local congregations. By exploring these “expressions” it is to be hoped that a helpful understanding of the differences and their impact can be reached so that Christians – pastors and congregations alike – can respond redemptively in the midst of conflict.

Definitions of Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Gender

At the most basic level of this conflict is definition. Often popular egalitarian and complementarian literature (in contrast to the theological and scholarly literature) has tended toward assuming definitions or caricaturing “the other side” with a straw man (i.e., Bilezikian’s description of complementarians as “the hierarchical approach” [2008, 2]). The need arises, then, to ensure that we have properly defined each position, as well as a definition of gender, to establish a lens and foundation with which to understand the conflict and build a redemptive locus of reconciliation.
Because of the biases of the literature currently available, I have determined to define these terms to the best of my ability, without appeal to the said literature. It should be noted that these definitions are given under the assumption that each view is attempting, as far as is possible, to represent “the Biblical approach to gender”. While this also has implications for the nature of marriage, family life and other arenas, our primary concern is with the local church and, our definitions will be primarily concerned with that.

To begin with, egalitarianism is the perspective or conviction that there is an equality of calling and role in the local church, marriage, and other institutions, such that masculine and feminine roles are essentially the same. From an egalitarian approach, then, men and women alike can serve as pastors, elders, deacons, ministry directors/coordinators, et al., as the qualification is not based on gender, but on calling and gifting.

In contrast, complementarianism is the perspective or conviction that there is an equality of calling in the local church, marriage and other institutions, characterized by distinct masculine and feminine roles. The complementarian, in other words, affirms the necessity and goodness of masculine and feminine participation in ministry while seeking to understand these roles and ministries in a way that lauds difference in gender for the greater good of the local church.

Gender, for the purposes of this paper, will be defined as the quality of being masculine or feminine. The 1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English language defines gender as “properly, kind; sort”. Masculinity and femininity are determined, in part, by physiological characteristics. Being male and female, however, does not determine whether behavior and/or inclinations are masculine and feminine. Therefore, another element of gender is an internal quality which, within the individual, complements the physiological characteristics. Thus, gender can be defined as the expression of complementary characteristics, both physiological and internal, in either the masculine or the feminine variety.