In his newest book, “Complementarity: Dignity, Difference, and Interdependence,” Gregg Allison, professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, seeks to establish what he calls “complementarity” as the proper framework upon which to understand the breadth of the Bible’s teaching on God’s design for male and female. His aim is to get beneath complementarianism and egalitarianism to a more fundamental principle.
Allison is a fine scholar whose calm writing seeks to elevate the tenor of this hotly debated subject. He posits that both complementarians and egalitarians are likely giving too little attention to the more fundamental issues and therefore not debating the topic well. He suggests that his framework of “complementarity” will help bridge the gap and produce a more fruitful discussion between the two sides.
The book’s approach is wide-ranging and scholarly, and it clocks in at just over 500 pages, making it difficult to adequately assess in a single, relatively brief review.
Allison writes that “complementarity is God’s design for his male and female image bearers to fill out and mutually support one another relationally, familially, vocationally, and ecclesially for their individual and corporate flourishing” (xiii). He posits that there are “three principles” affirmed in complementarity: “equal dignity, significant differentiation, and flourishing interdependence” (xiii).
At first glance one may wonder if perhaps Allison is simply restating complementarianism. After all, can “complementarianism” and “complementarity” differ in any significant way? But he makes clear he is not simply restating complementarianism or even advocating for it. Acknowledging the sharp division among Christians on the issue, Allison aims to offer a vision that will help the church “arrive at some kind of consensus about male image bearers and female image bearers in relationship to one another” (5).
The book is laid out in six major sections: 1.) Definitions, Proposals, and Foundations; 2.) Historical Development; 3.) Contemporary Context; 4.) Biblical Considerations; 5.) Theological Considerations; and 6.) Arenas of Application. These headings alone indicate that this book is ambitious.
Nearly one-fourth of the book is concerned with tracing the subject of gender differences from the classical era to the present day (pg. 27-167). Allison surveys some of the ways that the differences between male and female have been understood historically. He believes that this historical development is necessary to properly understand his proposal.
He begins in the pre-Christian era and continues to the present age, admitting that in seeking to summarize the history of ideas over such a vast period of time he runs the risk of oversimplifying the content.
His summary relies heavily on the work of Prudence Allen, a Roman Catholic feminist philosopher. This reliance does not automatically negate the value of Allison’s conclusions. By all accounts, Allen’s massive work is an important contribution. But Allison’s heavy dependence upon Allen at least suggests that his book possibly leans a bit too heavily on her presuppositions.
When Allison addresses the biblical considerations in Part Four of the book, it is clear that he desires to be fully informed by and faithful to Scripture. Readers will benefit from his obvious reverence for the Word of God and labor in the text.
The exegetical section (pg. 169-455) is divided into five parts: Old Testament, Gospels, Acts, Pauline passages, and “other New Testament Considerations.” He arranges this section around three topics: “hermeneutics, the canonical and covenantal framework of Scripture, and Genesis 1-3 as setting the stage for the lengthy biblical discussion” in which this section consists.
In approaching the relevant biblical texts Allison gives voice to both feminist/egalitarian scholars and more traditional complementarian scholars. Even when a reader may disagree with some of his choices, it is clear that Allison’s exegesis is thorough. In various places he finds agreements and disagreements with the exegesis on both sides of the divide.
In the end, in terms of practical implications, Allison seems to lean more in the direction of complementarianism than egalitarianism. He holds that the position of elder/pastor is reserved for biblically qualified men. Though he does believe that the office of deacon is open to both men and women, I do not believe he makes a strong case for his position. Of course, egalitarians will be completely unpersuaded by his position on pastors and elders.
Allison argues that complementarianism (contra complementarity) relies on a monodirectional perspective, normalizing maleness and making femaleness a mere “complement” to maleness. I wonder about the accuracy of this assessment. I have never gotten the impression from the complementarian scholars I have read such as Andreas Kostenberger and Thomas Schreiner that complementarianism subsists in a diminishing of full reciprocity between husband and wife, for instance.
Complementarianism is a framework grounded in God’s design for male and female, not making femaleness a mere complement to maleness. In all of my reading of complementarian scholars (as differentiated from certain red-faced, serrated edgelords) I have never gotten the impression that women are merely a complement to men. At the same time, we must not seek to undermine what the Scriptures clearly teach that God created Eve to be a helper to her husband. We do this without also neglecting that in terms of dignity, purpose, and moral responsibility, male and female are on equal footing.
Throughout my reading of “Complementarity,” it seemed to me that Allison was attempting to construct a “third way” between complementarianism and egalitarianism. In his commendation for the book D. A. Carson writes that “Gregg Allison’s book distances itself from both complementarianism and egalitarianism, choosing a third option designated complementarity” (emphasis mine).
But Allison explicitly denies that this is his purpose: “To avoid misunderstanding or any misplaced hope, my proposal of complementarity is not an attempt to offer a third- or middle-way position between the two views. Such an understanding might be desirable, but it is probably not possible” (25).
Still, throughout my reading of “Complementarity” I was never persuaded by Allison’s claim not to be offering a third way between complementarianism and egalitarianism.
I am unsure whether Allison’s aim can succeed. So long as egalitarians insist on seeing the New Testament instructions on the roles of men and women in the church and family as tied to first century cultural peculiarities, there will not be a way for complementarians like myself to agree with them. It’s not a matter of finding a more basic underlying framework. Complementarians (and I assume egalitarians) believe that their framework is fully established on a biblical, creational foundation.
Throughout, Allison attempts to make the focus of the debate one of essence rather than roles. The careful reader will appreciate the book’s emphasis on creational categories and the exegesis of the first three chapters of Genesis. Certainly, this is where our understanding of male and female must begin.
And while essence is the necessary starting point of the discussion (and one that must be the foundation of the whole discussion), the issue of roles assigned variously to male and female has to be addressed with clarity. The debate among complementarians and egalitarians has very little (if anything) to do with essence because both sides agree that male and female share the divine image and are therefore equal in dignity before God. The debate is not about essence but the practical implications drawn out in Scripture.
In the end I do not think Allison’s book will satisfy many complementarians or egalitarians. This is not because I doubt his ability as a scholar. I suspect that his project will not be embraced by either side because both complementarians and egalitarians believe that their conclusions on the roles of men and women in the home and the church are fully grounded in Scripture.
The gap between complementarians and egalitarians is not one of essence or dignity. It is about how we view the Scripture’s teachings concerning the various roles assigned to male and female image bearers of God.
Indeed, Allison writes: “[The] issue of the very practical matter of church leadership and its accessibility either to men only or to men and women alike is not about ontological inequality between men and women, nor is it about functional differentiation between men and women. Rather, the issue is a narrower one: the qualifications for church leadership and its responsibilities. For complementarianism, only a select few men who meet those qualifications may be in church leadership, and for egalitarianism, only a select few men and a select few women may be qualified for church leadership” (364).
And this leads me to what is likely my greatest reservation about the book. I don’t see that it advances the ball downfield. I don’t see either side of the debate being swayed. I agree with D.A. Carson’s assessment that Allison is offering “a third option.” The question is whether a third option is needed. I am not persuaded.
Todd Pruitt serves as lead pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Harrisonburg, Virginia.