The New Testament instructions on how maleness and femaleness should be applied seem, at least to me, to focus almost entirely on relationships in the gathered church and in the household… When transposed into a modern key, therefore, I cannot see warrant in Scripture for saying that women should not manage men at work, tell men what to do, govern the country, or (in John’s language) influence men in personal and directive ways.

When does complementarianism get silly? That’s the question raised by an interesting (and at times quite heated) debate in August over women in the workplace. I’m commenting on it, not because it was heated, or because by doing so I’m hoping somehow to ingratiate myself with the arbiters of acceptable thought – I would have thought the ship had pretty much sailed on that one – but because I live under a woman head of state, grew up under a woman Prime Minister, recently voted for a woman Member of Parliament (who also happens to be a member of my church), and have hundreds of women in my church whose jobs and everyday lives often involve them telling men what to do. So here’s a quick summary of the back-and-forth, followed by my take on it.

The discussion started with an Ask Pastor John episode, in which the question was whether women could serve as police officers. Building on his book What’s the Difference?, and using examples like postmen, civil engineers and drill sergeants, John Piper acknowledged that his answer would make him look like a dinosaur to many, but responded:

If a woman’s job involves a good deal of directives toward men, they will need to be non-personal in general, or men and women won’t flourish in the long run in that relationship without compromising profound biblical and psychological issues. And conversely, if a woman’s relationship to a man is very personal, then the way she offers guidance and influence will need to be more non-directive. And my own view is that there are some roles in society that will strain godly manhood and womanhood to the breaking point.

That sort of answer is always going to antagonise a lot of people. One widely shared progressive example:

Where could one work, what vocation could one hold, where one wouldn’t be in the position of giving instructions to men? I can’t think of many, and certainly this position would mean that women are not suited for anything other than entry-level positions, as increased supervisory responsibility would undoubtedly include giving directives to male subordinates.

Krish Kandiah, an egalitarian whose disagreement is always flavoured with warmth and appreciation, raised five good questions: Are we submitting to Scripture or hijacking it? Are we acting like Pharisees? Are we making the gospel less attractive? What does this mean in practice? Mission or maintenance? He has a nine year old adopted daughter who wants to be a police officer, which lends his article a certain poignancy.

Even more interesting was the response of other complementarians. Here’s Aimee Byrd:

I am having a hard time understanding these guidelines. My influence in the civil sphere has to be non-personal and non-directive? Or I will upset the feminine masculine dynamic? Should we then get rid of women doctors and nurses? I don’t see how one could do that job without being both personal and directive. I’m sure they have many male patients whom they have to tell what to do. And we wouldn’t want women in any administrative roles then either. There would be so many jobs that “mature” women would not be able to serve in were they to follow these principles.

Read More