Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 41.15 - 19 March 2007

Why I am a complementarian

by Agata Omelanczuk, Guest Writer

A few months ago, Kerux published a series of articles by Meg Jenista entitled, “Why I am a Feminist” and “How I am a Feminist.” At that time, I also considered contributing to the discussion, but was unsure of how to do so. The problem was that I only half-agreed with the way the conclusions of the Christian egalitarian position are usually stated.

The challenge I wanted to raise is whether one can hold to a more complementarian understanding of the marriage relationship while at the same time affirming equality of roles within the church. My hermeneutic in understanding the passages about gender has included caution about the valid sphere of application of a given passage. I do not want to assert that texts that describe the marriage relationship have any bearing on the way men and women should function in the church.

However, over the past few months, while my approach to scripture has not changed, I have moved from my “half-complementarian” position to fully affirming that God’s Word teaches different roles for men and women both in marriage and in the church. The fact that I’m saying this might come as a surprise, shock, or even disappointment to those who know that I originally began my seminary education with the intention of pursuing the pastorate in the CRC, and only later decided such ministry was not what God was calling me to. In the following explanation, I want to trace the way my thinking has changed, and the way the Calvin Theological Seminary community, perhaps unaware of it, has enabled me to make the transition in my views.

The term “complementarian” really only describes accurately how I understand biblical teaching on the role of the male and the female partners in marriage. For most of my Christian life, marriage seemed less likely than a ministry position, and so my thinking focused more on what my role in the church might be. However, when I became involved in a serious dating relationship that resulted in my current engagement, understandably, my thoughts too became preoccupied with understanding this new type of relationship that I was entering. Not surprisingly, I gave much thought to the two classic New Testament passages on husbands and wives, Ephesians 5:18-33 and 1 Peter 3:1-7. Simply reading these shows that there is some differentiation in roles between the two parties in a marriage, with the husband being called to love and care for his wife, and the wife being respectful towards, and submissive to, her husband.

However, I also noticed that all the texts that call for the submission of women to men are set within the marriage context (see also Col 3:18 and Titus 2:5). Thus, this type of role relationship between the genders does not extend beyond those who are married to each other. Because scriptural teaching about the complementarity of roles applies only to the marriage relationship, my shift towards a view that restricts women (first of all, myself) from certain types of roles within the church has been more gradual. Because I do not see the Bible giving instructions to the two genders regarding their relationship to each other in the church, I prefer to use a term such as “function restrictive” for its teaching on the role of women in that context. “Complementarian” implies some sort of mutuality, and the teaching on women’s roles in the church is not accompanied by similar instructions for men.

My first step towards moving to such a view of the function of women was realizing that all true churches are ultimately governed by Christ. Thus, even where there is imperfection or evil such as restrictions that are not biblically supported, the Lord is working. This recognition allowed me to think that in certain cases where a church has decided against having women as pastors, it might be wrong to argue for female leadership. Perhaps what a legitimate authority decides regarding certain matters that can otherwise be classified as “indifferent” is actually binding within the sphere entrusted to that authority. The contention I was trying to make then is that because of the great disagreement between sincere, mature and honest Christians as to how passages on the role of women in Scripture should be interpreted, perhaps the whole issue can be assigned to the category of “adiaphora.”

I recognize now that finally being in a setting and situation where I did not feel that I had to defend my own desire for a controversial vocational choice, and feeling affirmed in my own unique gifts, has allowed me to more honestly think through the whole matter of women in ministry. It is difficult to let oneself question one’s beliefs when one at the same time has to defend them before others.

This is one of the reasons why I am grateful to Calvin Seminary. In the six months that I have been here, I cannot recall there being even one occasion when I felt slighted because I am female. In fact, while I do know the positions of some of my closer friends, I cannot tell who of my acquaintances or professors is a complementarian, and who is an egalitarian. This might be in part due to the fact that I am not pursuing ordained ministry, but even so, this seems to be a very supportive setting.

A more honest re-evaluation of my view on the role of women in the church meant that I eventually had to face those texts in Scripture that seemed to go against my view. In this case, it meant that I had to rethink whether the Bible’s teaching on the issue was not clear. Most prominent among the passages I had to think about is 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.” Perhaps it could refer to a wife not teaching her husband. But, the context points to this text giving instruction regarding what takes place in the church. Of course, there are other texts that describe women teaching and exercising authority (examples that come to mind most quickly are Priscilla and Deborah), but they were not acting within the church context. Furthermore, the qualifications for pastors and elders seem to have male candidates in mind, without any indications in the Scriptures, as there are for the office of deacon, that women can also be considered. Because of this, at this point, I can assert that God’s authoritative Word restricts female believers from publicly and officially functioning as pastors or teaching elders.

In summary, I have come to hold that women function as the subordinate partner within the complemenarity of the marriage relationships, and are restricted from the role of pastor or elder in the church. I still hold that these two areas for which our roles are defined are matters to be dealt with separately, and different sets of passages apply to each. It was not my purpose here to set out a full exegetical argument, and, in fact, I am not trying to argue for the position I hold, but merely to describe what it is and how I have arrived at it.

What has surprised me most regarding my progress in understanding on this point is that by coming to Calvin Seminary, I have come to one of the places that is most encouraging towards the use of the full range of women’s gifts that I have even been in. However, it is not incongruous that I will leave here convinced that as a woman, it would be morally wrong for me to function in a teaching, pastoral role.

It is precisely the affirmation of my gifts and the acceptance of me as a woman that assures me that in whatever other role I am placed, there too I can fully serve God, for his glory and for the edification of his church.