Mutuality is the Cha Cha of Complementarity
Part 1 of a 5-part series on Complementarity & Mutuality
In this post I want to explain how complementarians view mutuality. We believe that complementarity and mutuality are compatible concepts that coexist in the relatationship between the LORD God and Jesus Christ. And if they coexist in the Godhead, then it makes sense that they coexist in the people God created to display His glory. Complementary differences actually foster mutuality. What’s more, though distinct roles under-gird the male-female relationship, they ought to fade into the background, eclipsed by the spectacular beauty and unity of the dance. Cha Cha Cha
According to CS Lewis, turning from role-sameness (egalitarianism) to role-distinction (complementarity) is like turning from a march to a dance.
I like the analogy.
I realized just how apt it was many years ago, when my husband and I took some ballroom dance lessons.
From a March to a Dance
Have you ever watched a skilled couple perform a dance? Once, I had the opportunity to watch a professional dance troupe perform at the Sydney Opera House in Australia. The male and female of each pair danced as perfect counterparts. They made the most intricate moves, spins, and lifts seem effortless. It was breathtakingly beautiful. For me, the performance on stage testified to the passion, mystery, and wonder of the real-life dance between the sexes. I was mesmerized.
When Brent and I started our dance lessons, we discovered just how difficult it is for two people to move as one. Our efforts started out as a clumsy, comical disaster. We stepped on each other’s toes, bashed heads (both literally and figuratively), pulled in opposite directions, and annihilated the steps and timing. It was painful and frustrating.
But over the weeks, under the tutelage of our instructors, we slowly learned some rudimentary dance steps. Brent learned how to lead. I learned how to follow. It’s the complementary roles that undergird the mutuality and unity of the dance. (Who knew?) That’s the paradox of dancing. And that’s also the paradox of complementarity.
The Paradox of Complementarity
Since the 1970s, egalitarians have upheld role-interchangeability (“sameness”) as the path to mutuality. Sadly, they’ve often framed the conversation in such a way that the word “egalitarian” is indivisibly coupled with the word “mutuality.” They’ve thus presented a false dichotomy: An egalitarian is someone who supports mutuality; a complementarian is someone who doesn’t.
The problem has been compounded by the fact that some complementarians seem to shy away from using the term mutuality. Perhaps they would rather avoid the word than attempt to extricate it from egalitarian connotations. That’s too bad, because both the egalitarian effort to redefine the word, and the complementarian hesitation to wholly embrace it, obscure a profound biblical truth: Complementarity fosters mutuality at a far deeper level than sameness does.
Complementarity Fosters Mutuality
The dictionary defines mutuality as “the quality or condition of reciprocity.” Mutuality simply means that an interaction is reciprocal. Each party gives and receives something from the other. It’s not a one-way relationship. That’s not to say that the people are the same. Nor that they give and receive exactly the same thing. Nor that they do so in the same way. Mutuality doesn’t require sameness. It can occur between people who have different things to offer. In fact, difference actually creates a powerful impetus to reciprocate. If the differences complement one another, they naturally foster mutuality and unity.
For example, if I have some vanilla ice cream, and you have some vanilla ice cream, then what would the point of us sharing be? But if I have vanilla ice cream and you have chocolate sprinkles, then chances are we’ll be motivated to reciprocate. We’ll unite our ingredients and turn them into a delicious ice cream sundae we can both enjoy.
Complementarity, mutuality, and unity are not incompatible concepts. They go hand in hand.
In the Image of God
Complementary parts, joined together as a mutual, united whole, are nowhere more evident than in the nature and character of God. The LORD Yahweh, the First Person of the Godhead, has a different role and function than the Lord Jesus, the Second Person of the Godhead. The LORD Yahweh sends and the Lord Jesus goes. Though equal in being, the responsibility to lead rests on the LORD Yaweh’s shoulders, while the responsibility to respond rests on Christ’s. Though they have complementary roles, the clear teaching of the Bible—and, according to the Great Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, also the distinguishing feature of God’s nature—is that our God is “ONE.” (See also John 10:30) A profound mutuality and equality exists. The unity and indivisibility of the Godhead eclipses the difference in the role and function of the individual members.
And so it ought to be with male and female.
Male and female were created in the image of God to shine a spotlight on the nature and character of God, and to tell the Jesus story. This leads me to conclude that complementarity and mutuality can and indeed should be evident in the lives of men and women who have been redeemed. What’s more, it leads me to conclude that that the over-riding characteristic and focus of Christian male-female relationships ought to be unity. Complementary differences contribute to this goal; but do not contain it. This is a critical point that we dare not overlook.
Like a Beautiful Dance
It’s like the dance analogy.
Since Brent and I are amateurs, our dance movements are mechanical and clumsy. His efforts to lead and my efforts to follow are awkward, highly noticeable, and not always effective. But this is not the case with an experienced dance couple. As they embrace their roles, they learn to move together as one harmonious unit. It becomes increasingly natural and effortless for each to do their part. And as they become better dancers, their complementary responsibilities take a backstage to the breathtaking beauty of their dance. The mutuality eclipses the complementarity. Do the roles still exist? Yes, unquestionably. But ultimately, the roles aren’t the primary focus. Doing a great Tango or a lively Cha Cha is.
As complementarians, we must never lose sight of the proverbial “forest for the trees”. We will get things wrong if we forget why God created men and women as counterparts. It’s not so we can obsess and argue over our differences or our division of responsibility, or spend our lives micro-analyzing each step. Rather, it’s that we might shine a spotlight on His glory by displaying the unity, joy, and sheer wonder of the dance.
Category: Blog, Male and Female Roles
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Sign up for your FREE Subscription
Really looking forward to this series. As a young woman, the product of the first generation reared in the comp/egal controversy, I am more and more frustrated by the less than stellar responses from complementarian thinkers. Many women of my generation feel (and I believe in most cases rightly so) that complementarianism has been reduced to a set of cultural norms directed toward women instead of a robust, scriptural expression of the gift of gender. In so many ways, I believe this has forced many women of my generation to choose between their intrinsic humanity and the subculture’s sanctioned roles. It’s time we changed that. It’s time to take the conversation to a deeper level while still maintaining a thoroughly Scriptural framework. Thanks for getting that started.
Hannah
Amen. I agree we need “a robust, scriptural expression of the gift of gender.” … A jaw-dropping vision that does justice to the mystery and wonder of it all!
I’m not sure that you can so readily equate ‘role-interchangeability’ with ‘sameness’. No two people are the same, there’s never going to be a couple with two vanilla people! Is it possible to have two people pursuing the same objective in partnership, with each contributing their own gifts and personality, but without needing each to conform to a predetermined role?
Following with the musical metaphor – it would be like in a jazz group, with keys and guitar, sometimes the keys will play a support role and let the guitar feature and, at other times, the guitar will play chords to allow the keyboard to shine. It would be silly to have a band made up of just keyboards, and I don’t think many egalitarians are suggesting marriages should be like this. However, it would be a lost opportunity for each instrument to stick to the same role throughout the piece when they can support each other in various ways.
What do you think?
Laura, Your jazz analogy is a great one to illustrate that there is a diversity amongst the various members of the body of Christ. Yes, we all have different gifts and personalities. No two people are the same.
However, the jazz band illustration doesn’t exactly apply to the male female relationship. The Bible teaches that God created two sexes, male and female, to reflect complementary truths about the gospel. He didn’t create 3 sexes, or 10 sexes, or 20 to do this. He created two.
Yes, there are many different types of women, with different gifts and different personalities, as there are many types of men with different gifts and different personalities. So there IS a lot of diversity. But that diversity is expressed in two sexes. I can be an athletic woman, or a woman who rides motorbikes, or woman who is a talented engineer or mathematician, or who has the gift of teaching…. But I am still a woman. And being a woman means something different than being a man.
Yes, yes and yes! So grateful for this clear explanation.
I’ve often said that to the average onlooker our marriage would appear egalitarian when it is indeed complementary. You’ve expressed the differences so clearly here. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
I believe that through embracing our complementary differences as man and woman, my husband and I achieve a greater mutuality and unity than we ever could otherwise. I get what you’re saying. Though I’m a bit uncomfortable with the term “functional egalitarian” as I do believe that complementarity and egalitarianism are two fundamentally different ways of thinking and living.
Great blog on a topic that is often misunderstood or misrepresented. I am much better informed and assured of the biblicalness of “complementarianism”. You have helped me greatly. Can’t wait to read the rest. In Him Eph.1:3-14.
Egalitarian does NOT mean sameness. I have never read or heard any Christian egalitarian say the wife is the husband or vice-versa or the female is the same as the male. Not. once.
For your readers, egalitarian means affirming or promoting equality. Egalitarians believe in complementarity, mutuality, reciprocity but not hierarchy especially in marriage. Egalitarians are complementarians without hierarchy.
If I am wrong on that count, maybe an egalitarian reading will correct me. Proper use of terms is essential on this issue, especially since as I understand from your previous post this series is intended to address the issue of hierarchy in the marriage bed and recent claims that the “suppression” and “banishment” of unilateral male authority and female submission is missing in the marriage bed resulting in rape and rape fantasies.
As far as the dance analogy, those highly stylized dances are choreographed, memorized and well practiced to produce the effect. Also, in social dances, if the dance floor is full, the male partner is at an advantage because the female partner is dancing backwards. However, life is not like that. In life, the husband does not have the advantage of foresight for how the dance of life will pan out. Life is not choreographed and there are not practice runs. The husband does not always have the advantage of seeing what’s ahead to avoid the inevitably “bumps” on life’s dance floor. The dance analogy is beautiful, but it is woefully inadequate. Male led dance is traditional, but female led dance is appropriate, too. A female leads if a male partner is not as passionate about a dance, does not have the steps memorized, doesn’t have a sense of rhythm, can’t follow the music, lacks a repertoire of moves, or is not especially gifted at a certain dance. He may be gifted at or prefer another dance or routine in which he may lead.
Also, in male led or female led dancing there is NO hierarchy as there is in complementarian/patriarchal marriage. The oft used analogies of boss-employee or higher ranking officer-lower ranking officer seem to better express the hierarchical relationship of complementarian/patriarchal marriage.
Angie: Your comment demonstrates just how difficult it is to use words that are understood in the same way. I could just as easily say that complementarity is about equality. Because it actually is. And as a complementarian, I would feel my position was misrepresented if someone were to imply otherwise. I’ll be addressing the difficulty with semantics in my next post.
I understand that egalitarians do not like the term “sameness” because no two people are the same, and they are definitely not advocating we all turn into carbon copy robots. However egalitarians do believe that either male or female can fill the same role. They maintain that gender (sex) is inconsequential to position and function.
“Role-interchangeability” is therefore the more accurate term, though it, too has semantic limitations.
Thank you for your reply.
I think it can appear disingenuous to define egalitarian in this context as “sameness” when no common use of egalitarian has that meaning. That is not an issue of semantics. There is no semantic range for egalitarian to mean “sameness”. Complementarianism may well claim equality, but complementarianism also claims hierarchy which egalitarianism in marriage rejects and that is the fundamental difference, as I understand it.
Mrs. Kassian: “However egalitarians do believe that either male or female can fill the same role. They maintain that gender (sex) is inconsequential to position and function.”
By position, if you mean a position within a hierarchy, from what I understand, egalitarians, indeed, do not believe a hierarchy in marriage is essential while hierarchical-complementarians do. By function, if you mean unilateral male authority and female submission, from what I understand, egalitarians, indeed, do not believe husbands have unilateral authority and only wives submit.
As far as “role-interchangeability”, this may be a caricature as I have done much reading and do not recall ever having seen this discussed by egalitarians. It would be helpful if you could explain what you mean by this.
Also, I agree that it would be helpful and responsible to use words in this discussion as they are *commonly* understood.
Lastly, Eyvonne writes:
“I’ve often said that to the average onlooker our marriage would appear egalitarian when it is indeed complementary.”
Adrian Warnock writes today:
“Lastly, I believe that even outside the bedroom a good complementation [sic] marriage should to the outsider look very much like a good egalitarian one.”
that http://adrianwarnock.com/2012/07/your-authority-ends-at-the-bedroom-door-doug-wilson-jared-wilson-and-rachel-held-evans-controversy/
Interesting.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Angie. And for the Warnock link. I agree with him, and essentially echo what he says:
“I believe that even outside the bedroom a good complementation [sic] marriage should to the outsider look very much like a good egalitarian one.” (The auto-correct dictionary obviously doesn’t contain the word “complementarian” ha. ha.) *SEE CAVEAT BELOW*
Again, the issue you bring up about semantics illustrates just how difficult it is to speak to one another rather than past one another. As a complementarian, I am uncomfortable with people referring to my position as “hierarchical” for the same reason, I suspect, that you are uncomfortable with people referring to yours as “sameness.” The words have connotations that belie the nuances of our positions and often (intentionally or unintentionally) characterize the opposing position in a negative light. As to the *common* use of words, that’s exactly where the discussion becomes difficult, because egalitarians and complementarians alike use words that are “loaded” to differentiate one position from another. The connotations you attach to the word “hierarchy” and “authority” are very different than mine. I am offended when you use the word “hierarchical-complementarian” to describe my position, for the reasons I specified in this post. The word “hierarchy” doesn’t reflect the idea that Christ redefined the meaning of authority as the responsibility to serve rather than the right to rule. A much better term, I think, would be “counterpart-complementarian”
When I use the word “role-interchangeablity” as short-hand for describing the egalitarian position, I am trying to capture the idea that egalitarians believe that there is no distinction between male and female with regards to headship in the home and church family. Males/females do not have sex-specific responsibilities. Perhaps “role-neutral” would be a better term?
————
CAVEAT: I need add a caveat to this comment to clarify one thought. I agree with Warnock that the manifestation of a complementarian marriage may “look to the outsider” like a great mutual relationship. But I don’t think “egalitarian” or “functional egalitarian” is the right term to associate with these “outside looks”, as the inside workings of a complementarian marriage are fundamentally different than an egalitarian one.
Mary,
I sincerely appreciate your interaction in the thread. It is more than I expected as I am sure your obligations are many.
It may well be that some complementarians, even most, have marriages that look outside the bedroom very egalitarian i.e. equality, mutuality, reciprocity; yet, it is this very thing that has brought recent rebuke from within the hierarchical-complementarian camp i.e. Russell Moore’s rebuke that complementarians are so in name only but not in function. He makes the very claim that Eyvonne, Warnock, you acknolwedge that complementarians are functioning egalitarians. Moore, Denny Burk, and others have called for a return of patriarchy which is “a social system of father rule” to be genuinely instituted in complementarians homes, the recent JBMW journal reminds its readers that complementarianism is “father rule”, and then this last week D Wilson calls for unilateral male authority in the marriage bed. While there are some that believe complementarianism in practice looks very egalitarian, there are clearly those within the camp who denounce that very idea.
I apologize if I made you uncomfortable with the term “hierarchical complementarian”. My intent was to differentiate between complementarian-egalitarianism i.e. mutual responsibility to serve, equality, reciprocity, and hierarchical-complementarinism i.e. unilateral male authority and female submission no responsibility for reciprocity and mutuality. Connotation has to do with the subjective emotions attached to a word. I strongly contend that to define egalitarian as “sameness” can appear disingenuous. It is not a matter of having a positive or negative emotion attached to the word “sameness” (i.e. connotation) it is a matter of accuracy in defining words (denotation) within their semantic range. Anyone familiar with the use of the word, recognizes your definition of egalitarian as “sameness”(denotation) does not fall within the semantic range. Because it does not fall within the semantic range there is not even option to attach a positive or negative emotion to “sameness” because it is an inaccurate denotation. It is just as easy to include the common definition i.e. equality of rights, mutuality, etc.
As to the *common* use of words. Hierarchy reflects the idea that one has greater authority or higher position which is taught by complementarians /patriarchcalists. “Authority” means the right to direct, control, command, exact obedience. While there may be some who have a negative connotation for the words, I do not. They are what they are. I don’t inherently attach to the word “hierarchy” and “authority” a negative connotation. I am comfortable with couples willingly choosing to live within a hierarchical/unilaterial authority-submission based paradigm. I am not content to accept that to choose that paradigm is the only “biblical” or Christ-honoring way.
If Christ has “redefined” the meaning of “authority” as “the responsibility to serve rather than the right to rule” then complementarians/patriarchcalists would be better understood by dropping the language of hierarchy. (BTW, that Christ redefined authority this way has been lost on 2,000+ years of history, so I wonder about that). Because, as I understand, egalitarians believe in the responsibility to serve, may be why some (most) complementarians, as Moore says, “are functional egalitarians”. The point remains that some leading complementarians seek to institute “father rule”.
Mary: “When I use the word ‘role-interchangeablity’”…I am trying to capture the idea…that there is no distinction between male and female with regards to headship in the home and church family.”
Again, if “headship” is not a “right to rule” and if in complementarianism there is mutuality and reciprocity, does the male serve in submission to the wife? .
I think egalitarians would say: There is no distinction between the responsibility that both male/husband and female/wife have to be servants to each other.
Also, if there is no effectual authority (right to rule, command, exact obedience [even if nicely]), then of what benefit is there to use the word? If the meaning intended to be conveyed is “responsibility to serve” without a hint of hierarchy or unilateral male authority (right to rule) then wouldn’t “to serve” make the point more clear, and more importantly reflect scripture, since it no where confers the right to rule upon men/husband and the only discussion of rights between a husband and wife is 1 Cor 7 in which it is *mutual* or a *reciprocal* duty to serve in the marriage bed? I actually think very positively of the word “authority” and the “right to due benevolence” a husband and a wife have of each other.
If complementarians are functional egalitarians as Moore says, what dynamic do you think he calling for that he claims does not exist within those relationships that according to Warnock, Eyvvone, and you contend is the natural outworking of complementarianism?
Terminology is everything, and sometimes it’s difficult to get the words to accurately reflect the ideas. I disagree that the manifestation of mutuality in a complementarian marriage merits the label of “functional egalitarianism.” Complementarians believe that the husband has a responsibility for headship in the marriage that differs from the wife’s. On that basis alone, they are not egalitarian. As a complementarian woman, I lend support to and encourage my husband’s headship in our home. And I believe as Brent and I live out the biblical directive to image the complementary aspects of Christ’s nature, both of us become more of who God created us to be as male and female – we realize who we are, and the dance gets better … and more and more fun. I’ll talk about this in an upcoming post.
I can’t speak for Moore. But I suspect what he’s trying to address are couples that are bypassing the “complementary” part and abdicating their respective responsibilities. He’s encouraging men to step up to the plate and take responsibility to love, nourish, and cherish their wives as Christ loves the Church, and wives to respect and intelligently submit to husbands in reverence to Christ. He is calling for men to assume the responsibility of spiritual leadership in their homes–to take active initiative in providing spiritual shepherding and oversight. Headship means something. In a complementarian worldview, it’s a delegated responsibility – not an inherent right of men. Even the authority Christ was a delegated (and not self assumed) authority. Christ exercised authority on behalf (and in representation of) the LORD God.
Complementarity is not the same as Egalitarianism. They are two fundamentally different ways of thinking and living.
I think what you’re saying makes sense- that men and women, in general, have different roles, different strengths and weaknesses, and men and women, in general, reflect God’s character in different ways. And that that’s awesome and that’s what God intended.
But my concern is going from “there are these wonderful differences designed by God” to FORCING women to be a certain way because God said women had to do that. I want to celebrate the natural differences without putting artificial restrictions on the ways men and women are allowed to use their gifts- what are your thoughts on this?
Perfectnumber628:
I have two comments in response:
1. Complementarians believe a woman’s role is her voluntary responsibility (as opposed to a man’s right). Therefore, it is inappropriate to characterize it as anyone “forcing” her to do anything.
2. We do not believe in “artificial restrictions” on women either. We do, however, believe that the headship role of the father in the nuclear and corporate family is not a role that is appropriately assumed by women. In fact, I would argue that this is not a restriction at all, but a structure that encourages and protects the dignity and full personhood of women.
Very well put. I hope you ladies don’t mind a man chiming in here and there. Mainly listening. I am learning allot. Thanks.
Beautiful!
Mary, thank you so much for sharing your bold, beautiful gift of writing! You are a gifted sister who loves Jesus and who desires to be a mouthpiece for others, speaking and teaching Truth. I am personally grateful for you but more importantly, grateful for your intimate, growing relationship with the One, True and Living God! Thank you sister!
“egalitarians have upheld role-interchangeability (“sameness”) as the path to mutuality.”
I have never seen this. My understanding is that egalitarians uphold reciprocity, equal agency, both parties are actors. D
And, from 50 years experience, also a member of Dr. Packers congregation, I understand that complementarianism is about authority and submission, women submit, men have authority. This is not reciprocity since women have no agency. Dr Ware also taught the inappropriateness of female agency in our city.
I disagree that “women have no agency.” I believe that true complementarity gives a woman greater agency than if she had to fight for her own rights, as it is the responsibility of a man to exercise headship in the same manner as Christ: by sacrificially loving and serving those under His sphere of responsibility. True complementarity protects, nourishes, cherishes, and upholds. It paradoxically expands rather than encroaches upon on one’s personhood, power (influence), and position.
To a certain extent, egalitarians do feel that male and female can fill the same role, since this is biblical and evident everywhere.
Women can be single parents, they can raise children, they can work in almost every field that does not require using a chain saw. In the Bible at least some women earn money, work the ground, care for flocks, make decisions for their family, own land and participate in war. This is just a fact. It is a fact that if the father dies, a woman can become the head of the household. Complementarians believe this also.
But neither egalitarians or complementarians believe that men can bear babies. I think egal and comp have idential beliefs on the roles that it is possible for men and women to fill.
I have a girlfriend who works with a chainsaw
It’s important to understand that complementarity has much more to do with “who we ARE” rather than “what we DO.” The former certainly impacts the latter, but it doesn’t dictate the specifics.
The way you describe complementarianisn – as reciprocity and mutuality – it sounds possible to live that way. But I experienced complemetarianisn as it was taught in our congregatiOn. This meant female submission and male decision-making. I had never in my life before the age of 50′ made a decision who to vote for. In fact, the whole experience of making a decision and carrying out the action, was rare for me. This seemed to match the teaching of female submission and male authority.
My life has changed entirely since I left. I am moved to tears that women before me worked to have laws changed for women. I have only ever in my life experienced care and protection from other women.
I am about the same age as you, and was in complementarianisn for a lifetime, I can hardly look back on any healthy aspect at all. I feel so free, productive and able to care for my young adult children now. I do suffer from many difficult health issues however from before. In fact, as I write this, it comes back to me, that the last few years in complementarianisn slowly brought me into a deep death wish. I wanted to die because I saw no other way out. Perhaps this is too personal to share, but I think it is important to explain how others experience this teaching. Leaving complementarianisn gave me the opportunity to believe in life again.
Annie, what you experienced was not complementarianism. It was hierarchialism wrapped in legalism. A complementarian is a person who believes that God created male and female to reflect complementary truths about Jesus. It clearly and firmly insists that it’s the male’s responsibility to love, nourish, cherish, and self-sacrificially lay down his life for his wife. It doesn’t sound like your husband or the other men in your church grasped this or even tried to live up to it. What’s more, a complementarian believes that submission is the wife’s prerogative, and not the husband’s right. Men categorically do NOT have the right to force women do what they want. This idea is reprehensible to a complementarian.
My heart breaks that you experienced such a perversion of the Bible’s teaching, Annie. Yet I encourage you not to turn away from truth as a result. I’m glad that you can still see the possibility of complementarity and mutuality as God intended it. I pray the Lord will continue to heal you and minister grace and truth to your spirit.
Maybe I missed it, but could you give the source for your CS Lewis information? I’ve never heard of him addressing complementarianism and you’ve piqued my curiosity. Thanks!
Though C.S.Lewis doesn’t use the terms “complementarian” and “egalitarian,” he talks about the concepts a lot. You’ll find the ideas
in his essay on “Membership” in “The Weight of Glory”;
in his essay on “Priestesses in the Church” in “God in the Dock”
on his essay “Equality” in “Present Concerns”
and also allegorically in “That Hideous Strength” and “Perelandra.”
Mary,
I’m so thankful that you’ve addressed this topic in this way. I haven’t even begun to delve into the next few posts in this series, but I am very eager to read them. After reading some articles from other blog about this whole conversation (originating from Jared Wilson’s original post), I was hoping that their would be a calm, clear voice in the midst of the storm. This is the calm after the storm. =D
I don’t agree with R. Evans’ stance as an egalitarian, but I can sympathize with her burden for women that have lived through abuse. I love how you responded to Annie here:
“Annie, what you experienced was not complementarianism. It was hierarchialism wrapped in legalism. A complementarian is a person who believes that God created male and female to reflect complementary truths about Jesus.It clearly and firmly insists that it’s the male’s responsibility to love, nourish, cherish, and self-sacrificially lay down his life for his wife.”
I hope Annie will hear your gentle words of truth, as well as Rachel Evans, as she reads these blog posts and comments.
I hope that preachers will preach the Gospel in churches where this activity occurs. I pray that they’ll repent and ask God’s forgiveness, as well as their wounded families’. This abuse is not Christian. You can find that kind of hierarchial hurt throughout ages, across the nations, across demographics, and sin is of course at the root of it all.
I’m praying for you Annie and Rachel, that you might see the biblical backbone for the complementarian and that you would see the difference and the beauty God intended in a complementarian home.
Blessings to you.