Masculinity- … a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.

Femininity- … a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.

(John Piper, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossway Books, 2006)

Though by no means meant to be exhaustive, the above quotes from John Piper's book do appropriately sum up the differences between masculinity and femininity for a Complementarian.

Research

Earlier this year I had the privilege of being able to carry out some extensive research into the differing biblical views of gender. The debate between the two camps of Complementarianism and Egalitarianism delves into vast issues, many about biblical interpretation, equality/inequality and feminism.

Whilst remaining as neutral as possible about recent developments in the Church of England, I would like to bring some clarity to the debate by attempting to define the two most common positions in a two-part article.

Biblically based

The Complementarian approach is argued to be rooted in the Bible, to be central to an understanding of creation (Genesis 1-3) and the clear guidelines of scripture (1 Timothy 2:11-15, Ephesians 5:25-33, Colossians 3:18-19 etc.)

Complementarians contend that men and women have ontological equality, ie that God considers neither man nor woman to be superior or inferior in relation to one another, because in their being they are equal. However, they do see a difference in functional equality, ie that men and women in God’s good design were not made for all of the same tasks.

Complementarians believe this lack of functional equality stretches beyond mere biological function or physical capability, but roots itself deeply as an expression of what it means to be man, and what it means to be woman.

Marriage

Most complementarians also believe that marriage is a pictorial witness of Christ’s relationship with the church, and that central to this picture is the loving, sacrificial, servant-hearted leadership of the husband in relation to the wife’s reception of his authority (submission).

Complementarians believe that God’s intended design for men and women is that they would coexist with a dependency upon one another. This interdependency is premised upon the differing relationships that men and women are designed to ‘take-up’.

The Church

A complementarian would therefore view the general synod’s recent decision to allow a woman to serve in the office of bishop as a violation of the essence of masculinity and femininity. In other words, to purposefully set a woman over a man in a consistent stature of spiritual authority devalues the essence of what it is to be man and what it is to be woman.

It is noteworthy to say that most complementarians do not argue for the assignment of gender roles based solely on skill. What I mean by this is that most complementarians do not believe a woman is incapable of leading well, or that a man is not capable of submitting to any kind of feminine authority. But complementarianism suggests that men and women flourish their best when they work in a dependent partnership upon one another.

Open to abuse

Many critique this position on gender for fear that it can create abusive, unequal and unbalanced relationships in the home and in the church. Complementarians usually point to the model of the Trinity, suggesting that there is a relationship of interdependency and a functional model of authority and submission coexisting.

In God’s image

Because of this, complementarians believe a doctrinal view of gender is of paramount significance. It expresses what it means to be made in the image of God, acts as a portrayal of the gospel through Christ’s relationship with the church witnessed in marriage and grounds itself in an understanding of the relationship within the Trinity.

Complementarianism does not only reflect a view of the function of gender but it is also a deep theological reflection of the God whose image we are made in.

In the next article I will attempt to define the opposing position, the Egalitarian doctrinal view of gender.