It is abundantly clear that the while psychological and social differences between men and women are hard to pin down with precision, they are strongly (not exclusively) based on hormones arising from XX (female) and XY (male) chromosomes. In other words, biological. It seems clear as well that the hormonal interventions used by contraceptive pills were an important factor in our current confusion.
Sex is a powerful drive for men and for women, but it was socially controlled by the potential of new life. By disconnecting sex from conception, it opened up new opportunities for women be sexually active and marry while still competing against men: they could "have it all". The good news for a few is that they could "make it to the top". The bad news for many is that they now had a much more complicated life: they were not in just competition with men but with their families as well who demanded time and nurturing.
Our culture is being driven increasingly by the marketplace with its easily measurable production of more tech, more things, more money, more of everything, except things that are hard to measure, such as stability, intimacy, love and resilient children which historically are the products of marriage. What had been the foundation of society is now the servant of the marketplace.
Given that every time someone says "Men should do X" some feminist (really, most American women today, regardless of how they label themselves) will say "Wait a minute, women can do X also!" ... I wonder if the response to "Men should be self-sacrificing servants" shouldn't be "Wait a minute! Women can be self-sacrificing servants, too!"
Maybe it doesn't work that way, for some reason. Apparently women have some purpose beyond being self-sacrificing servants, but men don't.
One of the complaints of the first couple of waves of feminism was exactly this: That women were expected to pour themselves sacrificially into serving their families, while men were off getting all the [perceived] glory outside the home. That means that the "servant leader" craze in evangelicalism, combined with the "Anything a man can do, women can do, too" ethos of our times, is really a complete role reversal of men and women.
Aaron, I was wondering if you were familiar with the work of William and Barbara Mouser with their Five Aspects curriculum on sexuality. (https://www.fiveaspects.com/) If not, it would be worth your time to review their engagement with the meaning of masculinity and femininity. They have the thick anthropology that you’re seeking, and they can enunciate what masculinity and femininity are for, even for singles. Their work has depth and insight and is worth checking out.
I attend a largely egalitarian church so you can feel free to ignore, but it seems to me that the complementarian view had things essentially correct about 100-150 years ago, even if that wasn't the word for it at the time. The top males "do" things. The top females "teach" things. Once upon a time, the high IQ women would not have been allowed in law, medicine, science, engineering, etc., so they all taught the next generation which was logical work since women are (generally) more experienced and better disposed to handling kids from running the household. Society still hasn't grappled with the feminist impact on the education system, which allowed all the top tier women new job opportunities (to join the men in "doing" things) and left the education system with 2nd, 3rd, and increasingly, 4th tier talent. Obviously you can't say that in public, but it is a running joke on every university campus with an education school that the least capable students are always found in the education majors. The only "top" students found there are the ones who are completely dedicated to being a teacher as a vocation. Whereas once the top men "did" things and top women "taught" things, now we have a system where the top people of both sexes "do" things and we fill in the teaching with whomever we can find for the (usually lousy) pay.
Aaron, I am glad you have addressed this. It is an issue that gets lost in the fog of modern controversies. Most of us have to live our lives, and trying to do so as a Christian is made more difficult by the complexity of our world. I have a life threatening autoimmune disease. A few years ago, I was fortunate to be able to attend a conference on autoimmunity in my city. There I saw many presenters, and among them, many women who were advancing our knowledge of crippling diseases. I was profoundly grateful to them all, men and women, who were working to help people like me, and to whom I owe my life. It is certainly good to elevate the role of wife and mother at home. Many women have embraced the joy and creativity that can be had in this role, and it is long past the time to counter the foolish and destructive ideas that being a housewife and mother is less than being employed outside the home. Martha Stewart made a fortune appealing to women's desire to make a beautiful and comfortable home, and "influencers" on social media make a living by demonstrating the skills.
However, it is inconceivable that all women are only suited to homemaking. We would never accept the idea that all men would ever belong in only one line of work. That this needs some thinking is correct. I had a neighbour who was a firefighter, who knew, as he told us, that if he were ever to lose consciousness in a burning building, the female on his team would never be able to get him out. This has an impact on the public who depend on firefighters. She might be able to get me, a woman, out, but not my husband. In our eagerness for equality, we have distorted professions to fit the applicant rather than choosing those who can actually do the job. That belongs in the discussion, too. However, there are many roles women can excel at to the great advantage of society at large, such as research scientist!
Both men and women struggle to find a life balance. Many men must struggle to find as much time as they want with their children, while meeting the requirements of a demanding job. That women struggle with that, too, is not surprising. Research has shown that the so called pay gap between men and women owes a lot to women's choice of work, and the amount of hours they are willing to spend, which are limited by family obligations.
It behooves us to think carefully about which jobs really are appropriate for women, and be willing to recognize when differences in physical strength simply make women unable to actually do the job. It also behooves us to recognize in women a great reservoir of varied talents which we want and need to contribute to our complex society. A look back at human history will reveal that very few women have ever stayed at home, keeping house. And when they did, it was often that they supervised other women who did the work which most modern women and men just add to their day. The woman in Proverbs was more typical of women throughout history than the homemaker who exists now because the society we live in can, in some cases, remunerate a man enough to support himself, his wife, and his children.
Aaron, you wrote: "My hypothesis about why they do this is because evangelicalism has an essentially Biblicist view of truth. That is, their view of the Bible is so high that they are unwilling to venture truth claims that can’t be proof texted in the Bible."
A high view of the bible isn't the problem here. Rather, the issue is an inability to believe the authority of scripture is operative when thinking inductively. Modern people are terrible and uncomfortable with inductive reasoning. As soon as someone challenges inductive reasoning, moderns drop the claim.
Excellent work as usual Aaron. I don't think there is a role *greater* than that of wife or mother, any more than there is a role *greater* than husband and father. However, as Clark, argues so well, the fundamental biological roles serve as paradigm cases that are then reflected and refracted through even those male and female image bearers that do not themselves fulfill these specific roles. (For example, a single soldier who risks or even gives his life to protect his community is a model protector, even if he dies before marrying or fathering a child). Yet while we have many paradigms of these "extended" roles for men, we have few for women and those we do have are more severely eviscerated by the technological society we inhabit. This is the question that complementarians need to answer—what is the parallel case to "soldier" for women? (and while it is true enough, it is not enough to say, "not-soldier") If men can protect or provide without being husbands or fathers, how can women who either don't have the ability or opportunity, or whose season for doing so has past, enflesh and nurture?
Aaron mentioned that he put this statement on X, “The biggest problem facing the evangelical complementarian gender theology is its inability to articulate a compelling role for women apart from wife and mother. Unsurprisingly, this is unappealing to women with talents and inclinations beyond that, or who are single.”
One can obsess over implications that weren't intended, so I hope I am not misinterpreting what he meant by this. However, I feel compelled to point out that there are multiple problems with his statement.
First, the role of wife and mother is critically important and goes to the heart of what constitutes a healthy, functioning society. To argue for another compelling role is missing the mark. A woman who puts her whole heart and mind into excelling as a good wife and mother, and doing related diaconal activities (especially if single), bears much fruit. Other ambitions only serve to interfere with this. Second, to argue that being a wife and mother is unappealing to women with talents and inclinations beyond that is tantamount to saying that the role of wife and mother places a limitation on talented women. This idea is the modern wedge that's used to inflame ambition in women and destroy families. Neither women nor men benefit from this erroneous thinking. The world does not need more ambitious, selfish people. It needs more righteous ones.
What is a woman? What is a man? They're each one half of a potential family. I do believe a lot of stress and confusion, both within and without Christianity, comes from having forgetten our fundamental role: to come together and form families. Almost everything else on the question of men and women, feminism, etc. is just noise and cultural preference.
I do think all Christian churches will need to be better at explaining this to both sexes. But a lot of it falls onto Christians themselves... to find patterns of living which de-emphadsize worldly status.
The talents and contributions of the highly ambitious and intelligent man or woman do not have to be sacrificed on the altars of Babylon. They could be re-directed toward the Christian community building we're all talking about.
Great piece. I concur that thin complementarianism will not survive in coming years and neither will the thick version as it currently stands at least in urban churches.
Perhaps Aaron will help this anthropology project from the evangelical viewpoint, though I’m trying to figure out whether he is egalitarian or just opposed to current complementarian teaching which emphasizes the male servant leader role.
Since he references them, an interesting resource is Tim Keller’s sermon series on marriage from the 90’s, in which towards the end he does put forward an anthropological statement for both men and women. This is squarely a statement for the neutral world and I don’t know if it appears in their later book.
Thanks for your reply. You are correct that I am a PCA ruling elder for over 20 years now. Our church is small, so elders stay on the session until they retire.
I would submit that there is so much debate is because we are sinners and don't rightly understand the word of God unless enlightened by the Holy Spirit. I read a lot every day and what I see from Aaron is a lot of categorizing; some you have mentioned - egalitarianism, thin complementarians, thick complementarians, and neo-patriarchs. The Scripture in my mind is clear that man was created to exercise dominion over the earth and the woman was to be his helpmate. While both men and women take on different responsibilities due to the fall - a man primary responsibility is to exercise dominion and his woman (wife) is to assist him (primarily in childbearing), but other roles and responsibilities as the man assigns them but treating his wife as the weaker vessel and therefore with understanding.
In Titus 2, Paul calls "...the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed." I don't see that discussed much at all.
I don't want to speak for Aaron, because this appears to be his calling. He is challenging the church to change as he indicated when he says, "What is needed is a broader vision of substantive gender complementarity." But I would contend that his over-intellectualizing is not helpful. At least not to me.
God is sovereign, and He will use intellectuals like Aaron and weary, but joyful day to day warriors like myself to further His kingdom. I am praying whether or not this is a good investment of my money - and more importantly, my time.
Over the years, as I have become a mother of many on top of my highly-educated profession, I have found this to be true. There are just not enough hours in the day for it all!
I’m very close to ending my subscription to Aaron’s newsletter. Perhaps I’m not as smart as him, but this over-intellectualizing of every issue is tedious. Thin and thick complementarianism jargon and the need to come up with a new anthropology of gender and gender roles is not helpful. The Scripture is clear about the roles of man and woman and the attempts to appeal to modern sensibilities to me is akin to the seeker-sensitive church movement that has led to apostasy in many places.
As my favorite atheist, George Orwell said, “Some things are so stupid only intellectuals believe them.”
Perhaps I’m being too harsh, but being close to 70 with children and grandchildren and living around this country and the world I have found that over complicating things does not bring clarity, but only more confusion.
As someone who believes in Biblical patriarchy, I believe the wife is to be a help meet to her husband. He has tasks and ministries that God has given him, and she works to help him with those tasks. Having the wife work outside the home for some other authority figure just causes confusion by giving her multiple heads. Have you ever had a work situation where you had two bosses? Definitely not a positive situation. She may work business endeavors to help with the family goals as per Prov 31, but is always working a) under her husband's authority and b) for the goals/tasks of the family.
So glad you’re exploring gender to the degree you are. It’s a tricky path but keep it up. I’m taking a class right now with Alastair Roberts on Gender in Modernity. Our first reading was Ivan Illich’s “Gender.” He’s an unusually gifted thinker on this subject. I don’t agree with all of it, but he’s really worth a read. Also I picked up the book you recommended from the Yale guy. Good stuff too so far.
It is abundantly clear that the while psychological and social differences between men and women are hard to pin down with precision, they are strongly (not exclusively) based on hormones arising from XX (female) and XY (male) chromosomes. In other words, biological. It seems clear as well that the hormonal interventions used by contraceptive pills were an important factor in our current confusion.
Sex is a powerful drive for men and for women, but it was socially controlled by the potential of new life. By disconnecting sex from conception, it opened up new opportunities for women be sexually active and marry while still competing against men: they could "have it all". The good news for a few is that they could "make it to the top". The bad news for many is that they now had a much more complicated life: they were not in just competition with men but with their families as well who demanded time and nurturing.
Our culture is being driven increasingly by the marketplace with its easily measurable production of more tech, more things, more money, more of everything, except things that are hard to measure, such as stability, intimacy, love and resilient children which historically are the products of marriage. What had been the foundation of society is now the servant of the marketplace.
Given that every time someone says "Men should do X" some feminist (really, most American women today, regardless of how they label themselves) will say "Wait a minute, women can do X also!" ... I wonder if the response to "Men should be self-sacrificing servants" shouldn't be "Wait a minute! Women can be self-sacrificing servants, too!"
Maybe it doesn't work that way, for some reason. Apparently women have some purpose beyond being self-sacrificing servants, but men don't.
One of the complaints of the first couple of waves of feminism was exactly this: That women were expected to pour themselves sacrificially into serving their families, while men were off getting all the [perceived] glory outside the home. That means that the "servant leader" craze in evangelicalism, combined with the "Anything a man can do, women can do, too" ethos of our times, is really a complete role reversal of men and women.
Aaron, I was wondering if you were familiar with the work of William and Barbara Mouser with their Five Aspects curriculum on sexuality. (https://www.fiveaspects.com/) If not, it would be worth your time to review their engagement with the meaning of masculinity and femininity. They have the thick anthropology that you’re seeking, and they can enunciate what masculinity and femininity are for, even for singles. Their work has depth and insight and is worth checking out.
I attend a largely egalitarian church so you can feel free to ignore, but it seems to me that the complementarian view had things essentially correct about 100-150 years ago, even if that wasn't the word for it at the time. The top males "do" things. The top females "teach" things. Once upon a time, the high IQ women would not have been allowed in law, medicine, science, engineering, etc., so they all taught the next generation which was logical work since women are (generally) more experienced and better disposed to handling kids from running the household. Society still hasn't grappled with the feminist impact on the education system, which allowed all the top tier women new job opportunities (to join the men in "doing" things) and left the education system with 2nd, 3rd, and increasingly, 4th tier talent. Obviously you can't say that in public, but it is a running joke on every university campus with an education school that the least capable students are always found in the education majors. The only "top" students found there are the ones who are completely dedicated to being a teacher as a vocation. Whereas once the top men "did" things and top women "taught" things, now we have a system where the top people of both sexes "do" things and we fill in the teaching with whomever we can find for the (usually lousy) pay.
Aaron, I am glad you have addressed this. It is an issue that gets lost in the fog of modern controversies. Most of us have to live our lives, and trying to do so as a Christian is made more difficult by the complexity of our world. I have a life threatening autoimmune disease. A few years ago, I was fortunate to be able to attend a conference on autoimmunity in my city. There I saw many presenters, and among them, many women who were advancing our knowledge of crippling diseases. I was profoundly grateful to them all, men and women, who were working to help people like me, and to whom I owe my life. It is certainly good to elevate the role of wife and mother at home. Many women have embraced the joy and creativity that can be had in this role, and it is long past the time to counter the foolish and destructive ideas that being a housewife and mother is less than being employed outside the home. Martha Stewart made a fortune appealing to women's desire to make a beautiful and comfortable home, and "influencers" on social media make a living by demonstrating the skills.
However, it is inconceivable that all women are only suited to homemaking. We would never accept the idea that all men would ever belong in only one line of work. That this needs some thinking is correct. I had a neighbour who was a firefighter, who knew, as he told us, that if he were ever to lose consciousness in a burning building, the female on his team would never be able to get him out. This has an impact on the public who depend on firefighters. She might be able to get me, a woman, out, but not my husband. In our eagerness for equality, we have distorted professions to fit the applicant rather than choosing those who can actually do the job. That belongs in the discussion, too. However, there are many roles women can excel at to the great advantage of society at large, such as research scientist!
Both men and women struggle to find a life balance. Many men must struggle to find as much time as they want with their children, while meeting the requirements of a demanding job. That women struggle with that, too, is not surprising. Research has shown that the so called pay gap between men and women owes a lot to women's choice of work, and the amount of hours they are willing to spend, which are limited by family obligations.
It behooves us to think carefully about which jobs really are appropriate for women, and be willing to recognize when differences in physical strength simply make women unable to actually do the job. It also behooves us to recognize in women a great reservoir of varied talents which we want and need to contribute to our complex society. A look back at human history will reveal that very few women have ever stayed at home, keeping house. And when they did, it was often that they supervised other women who did the work which most modern women and men just add to their day. The woman in Proverbs was more typical of women throughout history than the homemaker who exists now because the society we live in can, in some cases, remunerate a man enough to support himself, his wife, and his children.
Aaron, you wrote: "My hypothesis about why they do this is because evangelicalism has an essentially Biblicist view of truth. That is, their view of the Bible is so high that they are unwilling to venture truth claims that can’t be proof texted in the Bible."
A high view of the bible isn't the problem here. Rather, the issue is an inability to believe the authority of scripture is operative when thinking inductively. Modern people are terrible and uncomfortable with inductive reasoning. As soon as someone challenges inductive reasoning, moderns drop the claim.
BtW, we are taking a group of men in our church through Man and Woman in Christ, a book I learned of from you.
Excellent work as usual Aaron. I don't think there is a role *greater* than that of wife or mother, any more than there is a role *greater* than husband and father. However, as Clark, argues so well, the fundamental biological roles serve as paradigm cases that are then reflected and refracted through even those male and female image bearers that do not themselves fulfill these specific roles. (For example, a single soldier who risks or even gives his life to protect his community is a model protector, even if he dies before marrying or fathering a child). Yet while we have many paradigms of these "extended" roles for men, we have few for women and those we do have are more severely eviscerated by the technological society we inhabit. This is the question that complementarians need to answer—what is the parallel case to "soldier" for women? (and while it is true enough, it is not enough to say, "not-soldier") If men can protect or provide without being husbands or fathers, how can women who either don't have the ability or opportunity, or whose season for doing so has past, enflesh and nurture?
Aaron mentioned that he put this statement on X, “The biggest problem facing the evangelical complementarian gender theology is its inability to articulate a compelling role for women apart from wife and mother. Unsurprisingly, this is unappealing to women with talents and inclinations beyond that, or who are single.”
One can obsess over implications that weren't intended, so I hope I am not misinterpreting what he meant by this. However, I feel compelled to point out that there are multiple problems with his statement.
First, the role of wife and mother is critically important and goes to the heart of what constitutes a healthy, functioning society. To argue for another compelling role is missing the mark. A woman who puts her whole heart and mind into excelling as a good wife and mother, and doing related diaconal activities (especially if single), bears much fruit. Other ambitions only serve to interfere with this. Second, to argue that being a wife and mother is unappealing to women with talents and inclinations beyond that is tantamount to saying that the role of wife and mother places a limitation on talented women. This idea is the modern wedge that's used to inflame ambition in women and destroy families. Neither women nor men benefit from this erroneous thinking. The world does not need more ambitious, selfish people. It needs more righteous ones.
What is a woman? What is a man? They're each one half of a potential family. I do believe a lot of stress and confusion, both within and without Christianity, comes from having forgetten our fundamental role: to come together and form families. Almost everything else on the question of men and women, feminism, etc. is just noise and cultural preference.
I do think all Christian churches will need to be better at explaining this to both sexes. But a lot of it falls onto Christians themselves... to find patterns of living which de-emphadsize worldly status.
The talents and contributions of the highly ambitious and intelligent man or woman do not have to be sacrificed on the altars of Babylon. They could be re-directed toward the Christian community building we're all talking about.
Great piece. I concur that thin complementarianism will not survive in coming years and neither will the thick version as it currently stands at least in urban churches.
Perhaps Aaron will help this anthropology project from the evangelical viewpoint, though I’m trying to figure out whether he is egalitarian or just opposed to current complementarian teaching which emphasizes the male servant leader role.
Since he references them, an interesting resource is Tim Keller’s sermon series on marriage from the 90’s, in which towards the end he does put forward an anthropological statement for both men and women. This is squarely a statement for the neutral world and I don’t know if it appears in their later book.
Thanks for your reply. You are correct that I am a PCA ruling elder for over 20 years now. Our church is small, so elders stay on the session until they retire.
I would submit that there is so much debate is because we are sinners and don't rightly understand the word of God unless enlightened by the Holy Spirit. I read a lot every day and what I see from Aaron is a lot of categorizing; some you have mentioned - egalitarianism, thin complementarians, thick complementarians, and neo-patriarchs. The Scripture in my mind is clear that man was created to exercise dominion over the earth and the woman was to be his helpmate. While both men and women take on different responsibilities due to the fall - a man primary responsibility is to exercise dominion and his woman (wife) is to assist him (primarily in childbearing), but other roles and responsibilities as the man assigns them but treating his wife as the weaker vessel and therefore with understanding.
In Titus 2, Paul calls "...the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed." I don't see that discussed much at all.
I don't want to speak for Aaron, because this appears to be his calling. He is challenging the church to change as he indicated when he says, "What is needed is a broader vision of substantive gender complementarity." But I would contend that his over-intellectualizing is not helpful. At least not to me.
God is sovereign, and He will use intellectuals like Aaron and weary, but joyful day to day warriors like myself to further His kingdom. I am praying whether or not this is a good investment of my money - and more importantly, my time.
Thanks again,
I have greatly appreciated Dr. Elizabeth Corey's words on this matter. This article is the first of a few she has published on the topic: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/10/no-happy-harmony
Over the years, as I have become a mother of many on top of my highly-educated profession, I have found this to be true. There are just not enough hours in the day for it all!
I also think this article is very informative: https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/24/most-women-have-1-7-kids-these-women-chose-to-have-5-or-more/
Perhaps women are wired to lean more into that side of their person as they have more kids.
I’m very close to ending my subscription to Aaron’s newsletter. Perhaps I’m not as smart as him, but this over-intellectualizing of every issue is tedious. Thin and thick complementarianism jargon and the need to come up with a new anthropology of gender and gender roles is not helpful. The Scripture is clear about the roles of man and woman and the attempts to appeal to modern sensibilities to me is akin to the seeker-sensitive church movement that has led to apostasy in many places.
As my favorite atheist, George Orwell said, “Some things are so stupid only intellectuals believe them.”
Perhaps I’m being too harsh, but being close to 70 with children and grandchildren and living around this country and the world I have found that over complicating things does not bring clarity, but only more confusion.
As someone who believes in Biblical patriarchy, I believe the wife is to be a help meet to her husband. He has tasks and ministries that God has given him, and she works to help him with those tasks. Having the wife work outside the home for some other authority figure just causes confusion by giving her multiple heads. Have you ever had a work situation where you had two bosses? Definitely not a positive situation. She may work business endeavors to help with the family goals as per Prov 31, but is always working a) under her husband's authority and b) for the goals/tasks of the family.
So glad you’re exploring gender to the degree you are. It’s a tricky path but keep it up. I’m taking a class right now with Alastair Roberts on Gender in Modernity. Our first reading was Ivan Illich’s “Gender.” He’s an unusually gifted thinker on this subject. I don’t agree with all of it, but he’s really worth a read. Also I picked up the book you recommended from the Yale guy. Good stuff too so far.