Mere Complementarianism -- By: Denny R. Burk

Journal: Eikon
Volume: EIKON 01:2 (Fall 2019)
Article: Mere Complementarianism
Author: Denny R. Burk


Mere Complementarianism

Denny Burk

Denny Burk is the President of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

I have noticed of late a growing chorus of what we might call “ex-complementarians” entering the fray of the evangelical gender debate. These folks are not identifying as egalitarians, but neither are they identifying as complementarians. They wish to embrace the Bible’s teaching about eldership being available only to qualified men, and some even wish to acknowledge a notion of headship in marriage. Nevertheless, they do not wish to be identified as complementarians because they believe that the complementarian position has fallen short in some way. A recent example of this perspective appears in Rachel Green Miller’s book Beyond Authority and Submission (which is reviewed in the current issue of Eikon). Miller explains:

The complementarian movement has done good things: affirming the complementarity and equality of men and women, affirming that husbands are to lead their wives sacrificially and that wives are to submit to the leadership of their husbands, and affirming the ordination of qualified men. But extrabiblical and unbiblical ideas have been incorporated into the movement’s teaching as well. These ideas have more in common with Greek, Roman, and Victorian beliefs than with the Bible.

Not all who call themselves complementarians share these beliefs. However, because complementarianism as a movement has embraced these ideas, I’m not comfortable with calling myself a complementarian.1

What are these “extrabiblical and unbiblical ideas” that have compelled Green to distance herself from the complementarian label? She points to teaching about the eternal functional subordination (EFS) of the Son to the Father in the Trinity, Susan Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16, and the prohibition of women teaching men in informal settings.2 Miller is not alone in

her concerns, as Aimee Byrd makes clear in her foreword to the book. Indeed, Byrd herself will advance similar themes in her forthcoming book titled Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.3

While it is true that some individual complementarians have taught a combination of all three of the items identified above, it is a category mistake to identify these items as complementarianism. Allow me to illustrate. While it is true that many college football fans drink alcohol and yell ins...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()