Questioning Complementarianism: 2 halves v. 1 whole

Preface: 

This isn’t meant to be insulting to anyone. It’s not meant to be a commentary on the beliefs and practices of people I do or do not know, it’s not my place to judge what people believe. This is meant to be a place to work through some thoughts that I have been mulling through for a while now. It is meant to be a place to question things that other people accept as fact and leave unquestioned. It’s not polished; it’s not a “final draft” of an argument. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m not trying to tell anyone they are right or wrong in their beliefs. I only want to express these thoughts and wonder out in a public sphere. That way, anyone is welcome to wonder aloud with me – I welcome anyone to add to the dialogue! Just be sure to keep it respectful; keep it thoughtful and understanding. 

Thanks! 

Anna 

Right now I am in one of the healthiest, happiest relationships I have ever experienced or seen other people experience at my age. I think there are two major reasons for this. The first is how hard we both work to communicate openly and honestly at all times. This isn’t always easy. But because we are both constantly checking in to make sure we are both on the same page, we avoid unnecessary problems and address the problems that do arise immediately and efficiently.

The second reason has to do with the philosophy of complementarianism. I hesitate to use that word because it carries a lot of religious politics and emotionally inflamed responses. As a movement in the Christian church, complementarianism often is a softened way to pitch patriarchy, all the while justifying this behavior because God created men and women as equal but different. In theory this is fine but in practice this more often than not encourages a harmful system discouraging equality because the emphasis is on the differences, and ignoring the (in)equalities being performed. This is accomplished by creating definitive lists of the roles a husband and a wife must perform, because God created females with X traits and males with Y traits and there are specific tasks and roles that become necessary to support those traits. If you don’t perform them, you have failed to reach your status as a “real man” or “real woman,” marking yourself as wrong and bad. (for more on this, see: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/legalism-gender-roles)  

Instead of working off of a static list of masculine behaviors and a static list of feminist behaviors, my personal relationship has a dynamic list of Anna behaviors and a dynamic list of Alan behaviors. I’m incredibly private and he’s an exhibitionist. I become overwhelmed being surrounded by people and he thrives off of social energy. He loves teaching and I love learning. He loves cooking and I love eating. And this works perfectly for us – we both have our needs fulfilled, but at the same time he encourages me to break out of my shell and be open to new types of adventures while I encourage him to reel things in and behave tactfully.

Call it complementarianism, call it yin-and-yang, call it opposites attracting, call it whatever you like; but what we have is balance. And that balance allows for both of us to experience safe and healthy personal growth both as individuals and as a couple.  And that is why I think balance of personality traits can be positive and maybe sometimes even necessary part of a relationship.

I don’t think that you can find that balance of traits by limiting the criteria to universal and prescriptive “male” and “female” forcing people to be boxed into constructed ideals of masculinity and femininity. The more I research Biblical basis for complementarianism, the more I have to question what gender has to do with it. I think God’s call for “complementarianism” is for us to live life with someone who compliments our unique strengths and weaknesses, and not just calling us to pair a really masculine penis with a really feminine vagina. God is supposed to be a path to freedom, and yet these limiting ideals are a means of confining us into boxes that deny us our ability to be free and honor Him through who He created us to be (see:  http://www.jennyraearmstrong.com/2013/02/06/john-piper-women-in-combat-and-how-gender-roles-fall-short-of-the-glory-of-humankind/).

As for the argument that men and women are hardwired differently, I’ve never really believed this, obvious biological differences aside (though I do think those are sometimes not as obviously dichotomous as we want to make them out to be). The two reasons I’ve ever heard given are “because God made it that way” and “it just makes sense.” Even if we choose to ignore factors like intersex identities and how heteronormativity shapes worldview, I still have never bought either of those arguments. “It just makes sense” is too subjectively doxical and dismissive of other options. The second one depends entirely on your translation of the Bible, but I believe “because God created man and woman differently” isn’t as supported by scripture as people want it to be. Yes, God’s first two beings were a man and a woman. But you know what our creation story is?

Genesis 2:22-23: Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

Adam and Eve were created as equals (Eve coming from his rib and side and not from his feet or head, meaning neither was designed to submit or rule over the other). They are physically one and the same genetics (Eve being made of Adam's flesh).

Adam and Eve don't Biblically exist to highlight their DIFFERENCES from one another; on the contrary, they exist in a way that shows how much ALIKE they are. 

In Genesis 3, with the story of the Fall, we see sharp division between Adam and Eve. This is where gender roles are assigned as a punishment for the actions with the Tree of Knowledge. However, those gender roles are NOT a result of God creating man and woman them that way; the gender roles are a result of man and woman failing to live up to how they were created to be. Masculinity and femininity aren't hardwired into us; they are a result of man's choice. 

If we are created in His image, then we were created to be whole and good and complete. God portrays both masculine and feminine traits throughout scripture, so the ideals we should be calling individuals to strive for would be possessing balance of feminine and masculine traits within ourselves. The pursuit of masculine men and feminine women was a consequence of man and woman CHOOSING that path (with the Fall), not being created that way. As god is complete, choosing to either be masculine or feminine is the opposite of godly – it calls a person to be disjointed and lacking version of who they were created to be. It calls individuals to force themselves to try and behave a certain way even if that means performing a life of lies. Maybe even in some cases to be separated from God and His will for us. By choosing a feminine or masculine path, we are choosing to defy a path bringing us towards godliness. 

There’s the argument that having one masculine parent and one feminine parent is simply better for children – with someone to expose them to both sides, they will have a full parenting experience. That’s like taking a half of chocolate cake and a half of a vanilla cake, and putting them together to create one choc-vanilla cake. Sounds great, right? But is it not good for a child to have two fully-realized individuals as parents instead of two half-realized individuals as parents? It'd be like having two chocolate vanilla swirl cakes instead of one half of a vanilla cake and one half of a chocolate cake. 

Maybe that's a confusing metaphor, but I just said it as a way to explain why I don't understand the argument that men and women need to compliment each other through arbitrary forced traits and behaviors, instead of believing that we all should strive towards being whole and well-realized individuals. Then we can search out partners in a process of complimenting each other wherever our individualized strengths and weaknesses lie so we can further assist one another in the process of growing into the most well-realized people we can possibly be.  

In this framework, if godliness is the ideal, than there is no such thing as a godly man or godly woman. There are only godly, or whole/balanced/well-rounded, persons.

(In fact, this theory could even extend into viewing intersexed individuals as being symbolic for the ultimate ideal state of being. So there’s an interesting thought).

Anyway, that's something I have been mulling through for about six months now. I feel like I can't have been the first person to question these things; and I'm sure I won't be the last.