The Reformed-Complementarian Link
After making a number of good observations on the matter, The Common Loon asks:
“Is there something about Reformed theology that is inherently complementarian…?“
It is a fabulous question that I wished got asked more often. The answer from this Reformed Complementarian is YES! Yes, in a very direct, powerful, beautiful, poetic, and profound way.
To see why, try this experiment. Look squarely at the relationship between God/Christ and His people from the Reformed (i.e. Biblical) perspective. Now tilt your head 90 degrees so that the vertical axis transforms into a horizontal one and spiritual dimensions get projected down into earthly/physical ones. Now, with your neck thus bent, Rev 19 overlaps with Gen 2 (passing through 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5 on the way), the shadow of God/Jesus’ initiatory/leading role in the “divine romance” is taken up by a husband, and the particular submissiveness which adorns the church is embodied in a wife. I would argue that what you are looking at is precisely complementarianism—Calvinism turned horizontal.
Someone who is called a Calvinist will look at someone who is called Arminian and say, “You are ascribing roles, duties, and responsibilities to humanity which are only fit, right, proper, and/or possible for God.” Now make the following replacements in the previous sentence:
Calvinist –> Complementarian
Arminian –> Egalitarian
Humanity –> Woman
God –> Man
In other words, the “Calvinistic” doctrines of grace are not merely connected or related to complementarianism via third-party doctrines and convictions, but the two are in fact one doctrine, in its ultimate/spiritual and allegorical/typological/physical presentations, respectively.
One the modern American evangelical scene, I would probably be considered a hyper-complementarian in that, ideally, I highly favor a system of godly arranged marriages even above the current conservative fad of “courtship”. The Biblical picture of a bride that is “effectually” chosen and called by the masculine component of society, who is “wooed” by her husband after betrothal and matrimony, makes the Reformed-complementarian link that much more clear and stark to me.
(On a related note, the qualities that make a husband’s heart flitter for his wife are precisely what God is working to bring about in His bride as well (1 Peter 3:2-6). I have often emphasized this point when writing of a yearning for revival.)
I have not set out to “prove” or even “defend” Reformed or complemenentarian theology in this post; God willing I will do more of that at another time. But I hope to at least have shown a theologically coherency that makes it not at all surprising that the two commonly (though not universally) go together.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
If I am reading you correctly, you are suggesting that womanhood or femininity represents humanity and manhood or masculinity represents God. Is that correct? Would you please show me where you see that in Scripture?
July 6th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Thanks Zach for engaging my questions and offering an intriguing explanation.
If your theory is correct, how might it account for the well-respected Reformed egalitarian theologians and evangelical scholars (Nicole, Mouw, Webster, Wolterstorff etc.) mentioned in my original post?
July 6th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Nonsense. Pure nonsense.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Believer3,
Loosely speaking, yes. But to be a bit more precise I would say it depends on the context of what we are talking about.
In the context of talking about God’s “living parable” of human marriage, yes most definitely the man is representing God/Christ and the woman is representing God’s people, the church. The classic text on this is of course Ephesians 5, but it is equally clear from the abundant references to God as husband and Israel as bride in the OT, especially the Prophets.
In the context of talking about the “living parable” of creation as a whole, man and woman together bear the image of God, which I understand to mean that they represent the Great King in the way they, as miniature kings and queens, rule over their domain (Gen 1:26ff).
Now granted, Common Loon’s post was more oriented towards the “church life” aspect of complementarianism, whereas my response was more oriented towards the “family life” aspect. At this point I’m not hearing any one question the link between these two aspects, so I felt it sufficient in this post to discuss the link between Reformed theology and “family life” complementarianism.
Brother (or Sister?) Loon,
Got me!?! Honestly, Reformed egalitarians and Arminian complementarians do make me scratch my head. I very much enjoy the ministry of Mike and Debi Pearl for what seems from my perspective as a very “horizontal Calvinist” approach to family life. And yet they are fiercely anti-Calvinist in the original, vertical sense. I haven’t yet wrapped my mind around why.
I may not have an answer to completely satisfy you or me, but here are a few thoughts.
For one, I’m not suggesting that most of the New Reformed complementarians consciously see the connection I am talking about. Indeed, based on the blog posts and comments I’ve seen in reply to your post, it would seem that most do not see this link. In conversations with fellow Reformed complementarians, I have heard friends reply to this observation with, “Oh yes! I see what you mean!” When I pointed out the link, it was perfectly clear to them, but they hadn’t explicitly thought on it before. I think the emotional and Biblical processes a person goes through to accept one of these two doctrines TENDS TO pave the way for receiving the other, but it is understandable that not everyone would be utterly compelled to buy the package deal.
But second, I wonder whether it is even really necessary to “account for… well-respected Reformed egalitarian theologians and evangelical scholars”? Historically, how common is such a combination? If the people you mention are outliers in the big picture, then I would simply say that we always expect some such outliers from the general pattern. My sense of the matter, having not researched it at all, is that historically Reformed egalitarians would be rare enough to not require an explanation for their existence.
Finally, rather than speculating about other people’s thought process, I would be interested to hear from a Reformed egalitarian and a non-Reformed complementarian regarding their thoughts on the link I have proposed. But to the best of my knowledge, I would categorize all my Christian friends that I can think of as either Reformed complementarian, or, shall we say, non-Reformed non-complementarian. If you have a willing, devout Reformed egalitarian test subject to send this way, I’d be interested to hear their feedback.
His,
Zach
August 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Now, with your neck thus bent, Rev 19 overlaps with Gen 2 (passing through 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5 on the way), the shadow of God/Jesus’ initiatory/leading role in the “divine romance” is taken up by a husband, and the particular submissiveness which adorns the church is embodied in a wife.
…or infelicitous exegesis.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I would be a good subject I think. I am both Calvinistic as it relates to salvation, yet very much egalitarian in both church practice and personal marriage. I am reading both positions but lean more towards an egalitarian view that could be because I am what would be labeled New Covenant though. Also check out www.searchingtogether.org they have an article called “Are sisters free to function”