Complementarianism's Achilles' Heel

I love Complementarian theology; I love its theologians and pastors; I love the work they have done in defending the church from evangelical feminism. God bless Complementarianism! Having said this, I only go 90% of the way with them, for there is a vein of thinking in their theology that is a major problem. I personally believe that it is so problematic that it is their Achilles' Heel. Complementarians is the belief that husband and wife complement one another in marriage: the husband performs the role of leading his wife; and the wife performs the role of submitting to her husband and helping him in his role. However, many Complementarians pay lip-service to the “authority” aspect of the role of man. The concept of an ‘authority structure’, or of a ‘hierarchy’ in marriage, is generally ignored, or sidelined, or repudiated. Indeed, speaking about the husband’s ‘authority’ is to be avoided; he is a ‘leader.’ Think I’m exaggerating? Self-confessed Complementarian, Gavin Ortlund, a research writer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, warns about dangers that Complementarians face. One of the dangers they face is getting a name for patriarchalism and hierarchicalism!  (For how can we speak about a man being in authority ‘over’ women? Shock, horror!) Thus, Ortund’s article manages to avoid using the term ‘authority.’[1] This is the Achilees' Heel of Complementarianism.

Chickens always come home to roost. Unfortunately, others are paying for Complementarianism’s 'chickens'. A number of years ago a friend turned up at my door. I welcomed him but was mildly surprised, even a tad shocked, to hear him introduce his brother. I wondered what this could be about, and invited them in. My friend’s brother came for advice. He told me his story about his marriage. His wife had left him. He was not sure what to do. Why had she left him? According to her, it was because he was abandoning his duties as a provider and because he did not really care about her, her opinions or feelings. He had been a merchant seaman and had spent the majority of his adult life living at sea. In that time, he’d spent vast amounts of time away from his family. Yet, he was able to very comfortably support his family and wife. But he wanted to settle down, be with his family, and become a landlubber. It came as a shock to him that his wife totally disagreed and accused him of dereliction of duty. What tipped things over the edge was that, in the process of finding his land-feet, my new friend wanted to start his own business as an electrician. His wife again disagreed. But he had saved a lot of money, knew he had to support his family, so he decided to start the business any way. This infuriated her and drove her over the edge. She left him.

 All of this is very sad. It broke my heart, then, and still makes me very sad when I think about it. The man in question was a Christian, who adored the Lord, was gentle, and fiercely devoted to his family. The last thing he had in mind was to put pressure on his wife, never mind split his family. It is apparent that with all the years away from home, the wife and children had developed a way of life and expected it to keep going. However, the Christian brother could not bear it any longer; he had to be with his family. It broke his heart that his family didn’t agree.

What makes this story really heart-rending is that all of this came to head through the elders of his church. His wife was a Christian, and so were his children. They all attended the same church. Something wasn’t sitting right with me: why would a Christian woman separate from her husband over such matters? It turns out, according to my new friend, that his wife had, behind his back, gone to see the elders to lay out her case to them. And without him present, the elders had fully endorsed her interpretation. Later, they called him into church to rebuke him for dereliction of duty. They reasoned that because he was the head of the household, the husband, that any failure in the marriage was mainly due to him. They also said he had not acted sacrificially, going against Ephesians 5:22-33, where it teaches that Christ sacrificed himself for his bride. The brother was being selfish; he had not even taken into consideration his wife’s feelings when he started his electrician’s business.  He had acted unilaterally, selfishly, and sinfully. Also, he had lorded it over his wife, emotionally bullying his wife around. So, his wife left him…with the elders’ connivance.

I wish I were making up this story…but it truly happened. I don’t know what became of his marriage or the brother, for I came to America. But I do know he was disgracefully treated. I wish to draw attention to mistakes that were made:

• the wife ignored that her husband had sacrificed himself year after year by going to sea to provide for his family;
• the wife ignored that the husband longed to be with his family;
• the wife ignored the careful planning and foresight that her husband had to save money and prepare for life on the land;
• the wife was concerned only with her lifestyle;
• the wife went behind his back to speak to the elders;
• the elders condemned the brother before hearing him;
• the elders fallaciously reasoned that because the husband is the head of the household, he was more at fault when there was tension in a household;
• the elders interpreted Ephesians 5 in such a way that they ignored the headship/authority of the husband, and stressed merely the theme of sacrifice;  
• the brother was told that to act unilaterally was selfishness and sin.
• the elders did nothing to heal the situation.

If the elders had not supported his wife, she might not have left him. At the heart of their mistake was their exegesis of Ephesians 5, which I will turn to in a moment. As stated already, a major mistake was the misplaced view- that I’ve heard from pastors’ lips countless times- that the husband is more to blame for household ills than anyone else. I suppose as a general comment that might be true, for the one in authority is responsible for the overall health of those under him. If they are failing, weak, disrespectful, and disobedient, it is often the case that the ‘bad’ is on him. That being said, to say that the husband is the default offender is utter nonsense. I remember as a young Christian watching with a slither of awe as a Christian friend of mine got married to this beautiful young Christian woman, who was so accomplished and who loved Jesus. She sang in the church and had a heavenly voice. One year later they were divorced. Why? She had left him for another man. My friend was boring, unexciting, only quite handsome; but the new guy, well…. I am not aware of any authority structure- a relationship in which one is in authority over another- where it is said that if there are problems in house, that the guy at the top is invariably to blame. And yet, that is indeed what many, many conservative evangelical pastors believe…God help us! Now to Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 5:22-33

²² Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. ²⁴ But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, ²⁶ so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.²⁸ So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; ²⁹ for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, ³⁰ because we are members of His body. ³¹ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. ³² This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. ³³ Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the following explanation of Ephesians 5:22-33:

The husband must not bully or harass his wife. He’s to lead by example. He’s to lead sacrificially. Jesus was the Savior; he was the head. His headship was defined by his Saviorhood. To be a head is to be a ‘savior’. That is what it means to be the head: it means to sacrifice yourself like Jesus did, so that you might ‘save’, or spiritually enhance, your wife.

It was precisely that view that fed the decisions of the elders who disgracefully treated my friend. So, what is wrong with the above view?

1. It conflates headship with sacrifice. The term kephale (“head”), when used to denote a position of authority, never has the connotation of sacrifice- not in the NT, not in the LXX, not in ancient Greek writings. A “head” is someone in authority- a ruler, a king, a lord, a master, a husband. Whether he is a sacrificial type of person or not has zero to do with his headship. Thus, we read in 1 Peter 3:1, “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word”. If sacrifice was part of the definition of headship, then one could expect the ungodly to sacrifice themselves. Yet, here is Peter encouraging wives to submit to heads who were unbelievers, and who could not, therefore, perform any kind of spiritually-sacrificial service.
2. It conflates headship with Saviorhood. Again, I’m not aware of any extant writing in which kephale connotes savior, or even hints at it. How can a Christian wife expect a grossly ungodly man to act like a savior?
3. It plays on a false dichotomy. You’re either a bully or a sacrificial husband. But headship is merely concerning bearing authority. An ungodly person is a head. His headship has zero to do with his spiritual condition, or with how he, as a person, should be evaluated. How one bears and wields authority is a different kettle of fish altogether. The go-to verse of Complementarians is Matthew 20:25, which says, “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.” ” Heads are not to lord it over others. Indeed, they are not. But does that mean they should not “exercise authority” over their wives? For Matthew 20:25 says that the Gentiles exercise authority over others! Do we now abolish every human institution of authority? Perhaps we should take into consideration that specific Greek terminology used by Matthew. Katakurieuo is a word especially crafted to mean “lord it over”, or “to overpower and subdue” (Matt.20:25; Mark 10:42; Acts 19:16; 1 Pet.5:3). It does not mean that it is wrong to be the lord over someone, otherwise, how could our Lord, whilst on earth, act as Lord and head and leader? Likewise, katexousiadzo means, “impose authority upon” (Mark 10:42). It is not wrong, dear brother or sister, for a person to be a lord, or to be in authority, over someone. It is wrong, however, to crush people with that authority, to oppress, exasperate and harass them by that authority.
4. It does not appreciate that authority, full authority, is to be used to serve others. That is the point of Matthew 20:25-26 and Ephesians 5:22-33. IT IS BECAUSE THE HUSBAND IS IN AUTHORITY OVER HIS WIFE that he must use that authority for her welfare, for her sake, to ensure her spiritual welfare and safety. Back in the day, this concept was well understood…NOT SO TODAY! It used to be that we spoke about “the knight in shining armor”. But who was this knight? It was an authority figure, a powerful person. Jesus taught his disciples, exercised authority over them, rebuked them, expected them to follow his directions and commands, and so on. ‘But what has this to do with sacrifice?’ I hear. Don’t you know, dear brother, that Jesus USED HIS AUTHORITY TO SAVE OTHERS? We read in Mark 2:10 that the Son of Man had authority…to forgive sins. Jesus used his authority to lay down his life and to take it up again (John 10:18). Indeed, without FULL authority, he could not have died for his people and risen from the dead. It is this component, this piece, that has been pushed out, obscured, peripheralized, and finally, cast out by Complementarianism.
5. It doesn’t see that headship, in short, is an office. It is like a job, a position. Jesus is head over the church. He is in authority over it. It IS a hierarchical relationship. So what?! My boss at work is my ‘head’ at work; he is ‘over’ me as my boss. Big deal! My father is my head within my extended family. He is over me! The president of the United States is over us in authority. Is this so hard to comprehend, brothers? Being in authority means you are a type of ‘head’ and you are in authority ‘over’ someone. I remember being at a school meeting with various teachers, and they were reasoning with parents about the need for their child to follow the teachers’ directions. These ungodly teachers then…wait for it…started to refer to a ‘hierarchy’ in education: the teacher is above the student, so the student must…obey. There was no embarrassment with the language of hierarchy, no running from it; nor did the parents object to it! Yet, in the church, we are offended by it. May the Lord forgive us!
6. It softens headship by appeal Ephesians 5:21, “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” We are told by Complementarians that we are to submit to one another: wife to husband, husband to wife, elder to congregation, congregation to elder, and so on and so forth. And because of this, we are to see the husband’s headship being more like a mutual relationship rather than merely the husband being ‘over’ the wife in authority. However, this ‘obliterifies’ the standard and universal meaning of hupotasso, which, in the NT, invariably means to be in subjection to someone or something, or under the control of someone or something (Luke 2:51; 10:17, 20; Rom.8:7, 20; 10:3; 13:1, 5; 1 Cor.14:32, 34; 15:27, 28; 16:16; Phil.3:21; Col.3:18; Tit.2:5, 9; 3:1; Heb.2:5, 8; 12:9; Jam.4:7; 1 Pet.2:13, 18; 3:1, 5; 5:5). I am most definitely not subject to the control of my children! Paul’s meaning is, as the context bears out, that various groups of Christians are in relationships of authority: wives are subject to husbands (Eph.5:22); children are subject to parents (Eph.6:1); and slaves are subject to masters (Eph.6:5). This is the way the Lord wishes it. And just as the husband should not abuse his full authority in the Lord, so the father must not exasperate his children (Eph.6:4).
7. It does not understand that acting unilaterally may be the only course of action the head has in living sacrificially. It staggers me that Complementarians are so against the husband acting unilaterally. I have found by experience that it is this point of application that most riles the Complementarian. For a husband to do his own thing is viewed as an inherently evil action.  Yet, I am not aware of any authority structure in God’s creation, now or since the dawn of time, that has not had the authority to act unilaterally. Are we really trying to say that those in authority have, without condition, no right to act without prior agreement? Indeed, if this is so, then the one supposedly acting in authority is hampered by the equal authority of the other person or body. For if he cannot act without their approval and knowledge, he is bound to their consent; and their consent can, theoretically at least, hinder each and every decision that the one in authority makes.  During the Falklands War, British paratroopers had contact with the Argentinian soldiers at Goose Green. It was a tense engagement and could have gone either way. For the longest time, the Brits were pinned down in a small heather gully and were taking a pounding. Lieutenant-Colonel Herbert ‘H’ Jones decided a breakthrough was necessary. ‘H’ knew he had to burst out of the gully. He organized his troops. Then he personally charged up the gully at the Argentinian position, but was shot down and killed. He not only sacrificed himself for others, but he used his authority in giving his life for his soldiers: for he chose himself, as the nearest and most able soldier, to attack the Argentinians! For his bravery, he was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest honor in the British kingdom. The great ‘H’ did not consult his fellow soldiers; he knew what needed to be done, gave himself the right to do so, and made the valiant charge. ‘H’ acted unilaterally. The British won the engagement.  OUR LORD WENT TO THE CROSS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF HIS CHURCH, HIS BRIDE, HIS FLESH; INDEED, HE WENT TO THE CROSS IN SPITE OF IT; MORE TO THE POINT, HE WENT TO THE CROSS EVEN THOUGH IT OPPOSED HIM DOING SO!!!!! Yes, the Lord Jesus- praised God- acted unilaterally! Jesus defeated Satan and his foes and received a crown of glory.

I am appealing to you, dear pastor, dear elder, please do not fall prey to Satan’s schemes. Do not think that because you see a damsel in distress that it must be the big, bad man’s fault. Please listen to the husband and please do not pre-judge him. Please understand, too, that, just like you, a husband may make decisions that are not always welcomed. And also, I beg you, understand that some of his decisions, JUST LIKE YOURS, may be unilateral.

---

[1] Gavin Ortlund, “4 Dangers for Complementarians”, The Gospel Coalition (Nov.4^th, 2014), https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/four-dangers-for-complementarians/, accessed 3/7/2018.