Art Sido shared a video where “Together for the Gospel” luminaries explained why complementarian doctrine is important. Of the three, Tim Keller’s comments distinguishing complementarianism from core gospel issues were the best. References were made in the discussion to important theological considerations, but overall I thought the context employed by the three, particularly Carson and Piper, was far too concerned with cultural crusading and organizing. Piper’s great concern that males have a strong self-identity as men seemed off key; the Bible is far more concerned with our relationship to God than our independent conception of self-hood. Either complementarian practice speaks of Christ or it is not important. A solid sense of manliness will save no one.

I noticed how sharp everything looked in the video–and by “sharp” I mean “rich and powerful” — and I think that speaks to what is often mixed with advocates of complementarianism. The intended effect of the pageantry was probably not “rich and powerful” but “respectable.” How often those two coincide! And how much of Piper’s need for a definition of manliness is a need for respectability, a “salute the flag” type of recognized power and order? In their references to various ecclesiologies being more acceptable than egalitarianism, I thought that the variety in church organization might be permissible because in any variety it is still organized and respectable. (These are my reflections, not critiques of what the men said.)

In a completely unrelated post, Alan Knox comments on our diminished understanding of doctrine. He points out that for the authors of the New Testament, teaching was not distinguishable from practice. To me these remarks are very relevant to the complementarian debate. Teacher of complementarianism often wander off into some kind of man-worship for which I see no Biblical support. Yet I cannot think of any marriage I have ever seen with my own eyes that seemed to be healthy and was not lead by the husband.

The tricky part of the anecdotal evidence is defining what it means to lead. I don’t think I can. As someone said in the video, it’s not a matter of who has the checkbook. All kinds of things that our society considers leadership are actually just matters of control and pomp. There is still a kernel of realization left that leadership is not control. You hear a lot of talk in business circles at least about less top-down control in leadership. The closest I can hit it right now is that in my observation, in a healthy marriage a wife defers to her husband’s sense of right and wrong. This does not mean that the wife is doing things she knows for certain are wrong. But a moral aspect appears in all sorts of things that must be judged in the case and not from an absolute – a quick example might be giving money to a deadbeat child. Do you financially support your son no matter what or do you require him to put his own effort and discernment to work? Couples may argue about these matters of judgement privately, but it is the decision of the husband that is put into practice. To the extent that I can recall, where this is not done the marriage is not healthy.

As an aside, the story of Abigail would be interesting to ponder in this context. Abigail clearly broke her husband Nabal’s decision. She also clearly saved his life by doing so. But I would not say they had a healthy marriage.

Anyway, I said up front I don’t think I have a good definition on what leadership is and I am working with anecdotal (highly suspect) evidence in any case. The point I am trying to get to is that even when couples profess to have an egalitarian relationship, and even when the wife in particularly would be highly offended at the notion of submitting unilaterally to her husband, even then I notice what I would consider deference. Either that, or strife. Conversely, I’ve seen marriages where both parties would heartily endorse complementarian doctrine, but the husband’s “decisions” are arranged by his wife. In these cases it is usually the children who get the brunt of it because the husband usually breaks his own “decisions” when he thinks he can get away with it, and the actual trust between the husband and wife is very low. The duplicity of pretending that Dad is in charge when Mom really is destabilizes the whole family relationship.

The doctrine that people live is often stronger than the doctrine that people preach.