Some issues in the church seem to arise once, but then get permanently put to rest. Others, though, seem to arise time and time again, often in slightly different forms. Gender roles are squarely in the latter category. When I read my favorite authors from the 1800s, I find them having discussions that could almost be taken from today’s headlines. With that in mind, it seems unlikely that it will be resolved anytime soon. That’s not to say, though, that we should not continue to study the issue and sharpen our convictions.
New to the discussion is Denny Burk’s Mere Complementarianism: Male and Female in the Image of God. He begins, rightly, with a substantial definition of the term:
Complementarianism is a biblical doctrine defining the reality of, and relationship between, man and woman. It presupposes that a man is an image-bearer whose body is organized for reproducing as a father, and that a woman is an image-bearer whose body is organized for reproducing as a mother. A man has a body designed for siring. A woman has a body designed for bearing. They are the same in terms of their image-bearing, but they are different in terms of their reproductive design. Their sameness and their difference have necessary consequences for how they fulfill the respective callings that God puts upon their lives—necessary consequences for how they should relate to one another in marriage, in the church, and in the wider world. God calls the husband to be the head of his wife—a calling that requires leadership, protection, and provision. He calls the wife to be a helper who submits to the authority of her husband and who comes alongside him to assist in their mutual calling of ruling and subduing creation. While men and women are both gifted for ministry, God calls qualified men to be leaders in the church. These different callings do not make male and female contrary to one another. Rather, God designed our differences to make us complementary to one another. Our job as disciples of Christ requires us to understand these realities, to celebrate and affirm them, and to order our lives according to what God has revealed.
The counterpoint to this view is egalitarianism, and while egalitarians affirm that both men and women are created in God’s image and have equal dignity and worth, they deny that a husband is called to lead his wife and that the church is to be led solely by qualified men.
Of course, there is more to the conversation than this, as we have recently seen some diverging views even within complementarianism, so that we now hear of “hard” and “soft” complementarians or “narrow” and “broad” ones. Again, this debate is not going away anytime soon.
Burk’s goal in the book is to present a “mere” complementarianism, which is to say, “to explain and commend … what has been common to all complementarians at all times.” He also develops what he understands as the essential entailments of mere complementarianism while distinguishing them from what is merely optional or interpretive. Why? “There is a need for this today because critics of the teaching often confuse the essence with the accidents and, as a consequence, cause a good deal of confusion among those who are new to this teaching. If we could distinguish the essence of the teaching from that which is only incidental to it, we would be in a much better place to examine the teaching in light of the criticism that is sometimes leveled against it.”
He goes about his task in five chapters. In the first, he makes the case for complementarianism from Natural Law, showing that we can discover it through simply observing what God has created. In the second, he looks to Scripture to make the argument from Genesis’ account of God’s creative work. In the third chapter, he turns to the New Testament and the various texts there related to men’s and women’s distinct and complementary roles within marriage, and in the fourth he does the same with the church. In the fifth and final chapter, he draws out some practical applications of the doctrine and answers questions like these: Who can preach on Sunday morning? Who can teach Sunday school? Can women be deacons? Who can teach at seminary? Does complementarianism foster abuse? He answers each of these contemporary questions thoroughly, but not exhaustively.
My assessment is that Burk does many things well in this book, but two stand out. First, he explains and defends the complementarian position from both Natural Law and Scripture. If you are new to the discussion or want to better understand the different positions, this will be a helpful resource. Second, he brings the discussion up to date by addressing some of the most recent challenges, such as whether a woman can speak from the pulpit on Mother’s Day or whether women can have the title of “pastor” even if they do not have authority over men. He remains firm in his positions, but charitable toward those who disagree with him, presenting their viewpoints with the accuracy they deserve. He insists rightly that this is a discussion between believers and not one that divides Christians from non-Christians.
Mere Complementarianism is a solid defense of a very defensible position. But more than that, it lays out a positive vision for complementarianism that will help Christians navigate issues in the home, the church, and far beyond. I highly recommend it.
