I have read of some who were around when “complementarian” was invented. They would speak reverently and in awe of the term. It certainly was a brilliant move that provided folks with a sophisticated sounding, eight-syllable word to use. Who would argue with a fancy term like that? After that, we could assign ourselves to one of two broad categories: egalitarian or complementarian. Egalitarian was always fairly straightforward but complementarian meant something a lot more fuzzy and not much more than that it was not egalitarian.
It’s a political reality that issues are won or lost on the terminology that becomes acceptable.
So here we are a generation after its invention. Find me a complementarian who will offer a definitive list of what women can and cannot do. The beleaguered Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a group not voted on by any SBC messenger, doesn’t do that. The ‘experts’ in the field do not, preferring more vague approaches.
Hey, I’m just a pastor. Saying I was complementarian was a simple way of expressing things. But I can’t do that any more. Now one has to specify what kind of complementarian one is: hard or soft, broad or narrow, strict. This complimentarian business is complicated. I just learned that a “broad” complementarian is the same as a ‘hard’ complimentarian. Rather counterintuitive, I think. Maybe the adjectives have a scholarly underpinning. Sounds to me like picking the more attractive term “broad” for your side and assigning the more unattractive term “narrow” to the other side. Confusing, but I appreciate those who are deep into this being congenial, kind, and cooperative.
So long, “complementarianism,” you had a pretty good run in this Grand Old Convention but you’re not worth diddly-squat any more.
__________
“Clickbait” sayeth Dave Miller. “Scintilliating, erudite, and short” sayeth your humber hacker and plodder blogger.
See you in Birmingham. If you want to comp something, meet me for lunch.
