It's Not Complementarity, It's Hierarchy

Yesterday, as I was talking about my yesterday's blog post my husband Ira suddenly looked at me and said, "That's not complementarity. Complementarity should be about strengths that complement." I stopped dead in my tracks and thought, "What a brilliant thought!"

Suddenly it all made sense. If men should lead because they are men, and not because they are more competent, what is taught as complementary theology is not about men and women complementing each other; it's about hierarchy.

A hierarchy is not based on strengths and weaknesses, innate abilities or inclinations. A hierarchy is based on an attribute that gives those on the top more power than those on the bottom, and this power is maintained by legal rights. In classism, that attribute is wealth; those who have more money are at the top, and keep themselves there by legal means (such as inheritance laws etc). In racism, that attribute is color of one's skin; those who are (in our time) light-skinned are at the top of the hierarchy, and systematic segregation gives more power to those on the top. In sexism, that attribute is the male sex; those who are men are at the top of the hierarchy, and unjust laws and customs give men more power.
 
If theological complementarity was about completing strengths in men and women, men would have to be wiser, smarter, more competent leaders in order to complete the lack of leadership skills in women. The church did believe this was the case for many centuries because the scientists of antiquity taught women were inferior beings. About a century ago, modern science proved their ancient counterparts wrong, and women saw their equality to men restored. As a result, women emerged as perfectly able leaders in all areas of life. Now, the question is, how are men and women supposed to complement each other in the area of leading if both are equally good leaders?

Hierarchical theologians tell us that men and women complement each other when men make decisions, and women mop floors. But are men not able to do housework? Of course they are; thousands of men work as janitors. If men and women are equally able to clean and make decisions, yet women shouldn't participate in decisions making, we are looking at a hierarchy in which men are relieved from having to do mundane tasks, and women are prevented from participating in the decision making process. This kind of hierarchy has nothing to with complementarity; it has everything to do with worth.

A hierarchy is always based on worth. If it is based on money, the wealthy are considered "better" than others; if on color of one's skin, the lighter, the better; if on gender, men are priced above women. In order to create a hierarchy, hierarchical theologians have to somehow get around the concept of human equality, for a hierarchy of worth and equality are incompatible; if all humans are of equal worth, how can some be of greater worth? Because of this inconvenient fact, hierarchical theologians must somehow get rid of the idea that men and women are created equal. To accomplish this, they sometimes divide the image of God, or claim women are more emotional (and therefore unable to lead). Other times they claim men have an innate inclination to lead, or that women want men to be strong leaders in order to relieve them from the responsibility. Regardless of the methodology, hierarchical theologians must somehow put the man on the top of the hierarchy and give him greater rights, but they cannot do so and remain faithful to the Bible.