What if Complementarian and Egalitarian Weren’t the Only Options?
Where do you stand on what women can and can’t do, should and shouldn’t do, or the roles and offices they can and can’t occupy in the church and, possibly, within Christian institutions and organizations? How you answer this question will land you in one of two doctrinal camps: Complementarian (men & women complement one another with their differences) or Egalitarian (men & women are equal and without restriction to authority or function).
I have a problem with this.
My issue is not with the doctrinal positions themselves—(I’ve written & spoken about that here). Rather, it is that Christians are forced into only two options, unnecessarily creating a bifurcation. Yes, there’s a history and a reason these two exist. But many of us don’t neatly fit into either of these categories. As is common for humans, our views and rationale on things can be more nuanced than simplistic given the nature of the subject and context. Yet, currently, there aren’t any other valid and recognized interpretive options for Christians to identify their position on the redeemed male-female dynamic in Christ, more specifically, women’s leadership roles in the church and other mixed-gender Christian establishments such as colleges/universities, non-profits, ministry organizations, denominations, etc. So where does this leave those of us who don’t fit in these two options? It leaves us doctrinally unidentifiable and homeless, but not by our choice; instead, it’s because of the existing, unchallenged structure.
Thus, I chose to write an academic white paper on it: “Moving Beyond the Binary: A Case for Replacing the Complementarian-Egalitarian Classifications with a Four-Quadrant Framework.” I considered submitting it to journals (and still may), but I don’t really have a platform or credentials. Nevertheless, I wanted it to be taken seriously, used, and cited, so I wrote it as a theological method proposal, not a blog or short article on the topic. My paper explores the history and ensuing problems of these two positions, then “proposes a four-quadrant framework built around two interpretive axes: Distinction–Non-Distinction and Limitation–Open. This framework preserves the theological crux of both complementarianism and egalitarianism while providing more sufficient categories for viable evangelical interpretations.”
Read it. Process it. Pass it around. Use it in your papers, articles, presentations, and explanations. Keep the conversation going until something changes. If you have questions or would like me to speak on this topic, contact me. It’s published on Zenodo and posted on Academia.edu.
May the Body of Christ be released into greater harmony for God’s glory and our edification.