Editor’s Note: The following book review appears in the Fall 2024 issue of Eikon.
Graham Beynon and Jane Toher. Embracing Complementarianism: Turning Biblical Convictions into Positive Church Culture. The Good Book Company, 2022.
Intro
If there was ever a time a book needed to be written on building a positive culture of complementarianism in the church, it is now. With a plethora of resources addressing the alleged harms of complementarianism (or the harms of its distortions), I have been longing for a book that paints a positive picture of its beauty in church life. Even more, I have been longing for a book that teaches church leaders how to cultivate a culture in the church that happily and whole-heartedly embraces and lives out complementarian convictions. In short, a book like Embracing Complementarianism: Turning Biblical Convictions into Positive Church Culture is needed. Graham Beynon and Jane Tooher sought to fill this gap within complementarian literature. I believe they accomplished this task in some ways, but I found the book wanting in other ways.
Summary
The thesis of their book is straightforward: “Our conviction is that teaching and practicing a more robust complementarianism leads people from a reluctant acceptance to a joyful embracing of God’s word in this area” (12). Their goal is not to defend complementarianism per se; they assume a complementarian framework. Their goal is to take the conversation “wider,” “deeper,” and to make it “positive” (13).
Positives
Many praises may be given to this book, but I will limit myself to four. First, the authors provide a helpful balance of commendation and warning of differing views among complementarians. They recognize the two primary camps (with a range in between): broad and narrow (32–34, 42–43, 54–55). They helpfully show some of the strengths and potential weaknesses of each. In their words, “A lot of writing on gender leans in one of those two directions [overplaying the differences or denying the similarities in gender], but we must hold together similarity and difference as the basis of our relationship and unity” (43). It is always good to be aware of which way one might lean so that extremes beyond Scripture might be avoided.
Second, the authors draw out the tension between knowing that there are real differences between men and women beyond biology versus being overly precise in exactly what those differences are. They write, “One writer likened the difference between men and women to different perfumes: you know the difference when you smell them, but it’s very difficult to describe” (54). I feel this tension. Are men leaders, protectors, and providers ontologically, and women are not? Or perhaps women are these things to a lesser degree? Are women followers, helpers, and nurturers ontologically, and men are not? Or perhaps men are these things to a lesser degree? Maybe there are no distinct ontological characteristics of men and women, there are only role distinctions? Still, does that mean women in no sense are leaders, protectors, and providers, and men in no sense are followers, helpers, or nurturers? I appreciate the authors helping us feel this tension, while at the same time affirming that there are real differences beyond mere biology.
Third, the authors provide good reminders of how the church might unknowingly stifle the voices and gifts of female members: “Our concern is that among complementarian churches, there can be a tendency to assume or give the impression that we don’t really need the ministry of women — which is to regulate half of the body as being unnecessary” (101). This truth is important for churches (especially church leaders) to keep in mind. Since the preaching of the Word is central to the health of the church, and since only men are called to preach the Word (a point the authors agree with), the leaders might unintentionally build a culture in the church that devalues the ministry of women because they do not preach. Leaders need to work hard to teach and affirm the value of female ministry in the church.
Finally, the call for church leaders to lead clearly according to their convictions is a very important reminder. I couldn’t agree more: “leaders of the church need to take responsibility and decide where they will land on this issue” (127). It does not serve church members well to be unclear on matters of manhood and womanhood and how such convictions are implemented into church practice.
Critical Evaluation
While there is much to be commended, there are at least three areas that could be improved. First, the authors’ claim that God’s primary concern for Christians is godliness, not living out manhood or womanhood, is confusing. They write, “Scripture’s main priority for the believer is not manliness or womanliness but godliness. Or we might say, God’s concern is not with being a man or a woman but being Christ-like” (57). Of course, there is truth to these statements. But it left me wondering whether the authors believe that distinct qualities of “manliness” or “womanliness” must be pursued by men and women, or do such qualities naturally exude as each gender pursues Christlikeness? They argue “that we are never not a man or a woman — which means that we only ever express our godliness through our gender — it is part of who we are” (57; see also. 63–64). True, but surely they would agree there are times in our sinfulness that we are not living out who we are according to our distinctly God-designed genders. Their book would be more useful if it helped men and women go beyond the generic pursuit of “Christlikeness” to understand what it looks like to pursue godliness according to God’s design for our natural differences and gender roles.
Second, there is an overall lack of precision on what complementarianism is. For example, they use the language of “female pastoral staff” as a way of illustrating inequality that can occur between men and women who serve on staff at a church. Moreover, they argue that women cannot serve as elders because “there is no indication in the New Testament that women were appointed elders of churches” even though women “are capable of what is required of elders” (73). This argument makes obedience to God’s commands sound arbitrary, as though Scripture asserts that a church must not have female elders because God mysteriously said so. A more robust understanding of complementarianism is to acknowledge that God intentionally and beautifully made men and women different, and therefore their distinct roles arise out of their God-intended creational design.
Finally, perhaps the strongest critique I have is that I am not convinced their book accomplishes what the authors intend for it to accomplish; namely, to paint a positive picture of complementarianism in the church and show how to cultivate that kind of culture. Rather than painting a picture of complementarianism’s beauty in the life of a church, the authors emphasize ways complementarian churches have fallen short. For example, I found the following rhetoric sprinkled throughout the book: “If you are a man, and especially if you are a church leader of any kind, have you seriously contemplated what it might feel like for a woman to think that God prefers men — or at least to suspect that he might?” (62) This is not a bad question. I am simply having a hard time understanding how raising these kinds of questions fulfills their expressed goal to paint a positive picture of complementarianism in the church.
Conclusion
This book is worth reading. It contains a helpful reminder to those committed to complementarian convictions not to neglect the vital role women play in the church. Despite the concerns stated above, I pray that the Lord uses it to help churches turn their complementarian convictions into a positive church culture.
Share This Article