In Complementarity, theologian Gregg Allison presents a fresh vision for understanding God’s design for men and women as image bearers in the home, the church, and society. As a framework broader than either complementarianism and egalitarianism – and underlying both of them – complementarity affirms the equal dignity, significant difference, and flourishing interdependence of men and women.
Allison grounds his exploration of complementarity in the complex history of the relationship between women and men throughout church history, as well as the contemporary contexts of feminism, complementarianism, patriarchalism, and egalitarianism. He examines relevant passages from the Old and New Testaments before offering theological considerations of gender and how all Christians fulfill the offices of prophet, priest, and king. Allison concludes by explaining how a robust understanding of complementarity fosters mutual flourishing for male and female image bearers.
Allison offers a path forward for Christians who want to foster mutual support for male and female image-bearers within their churches and communities.
Allison defines complementarity as "God's design for his male and female image bearers to fill out and mutually support one another relationally, familiarly, vocationally, and ecclesially for their individual and corporate flourishing." (Pg. 1)
The book is divided into six parts — Definitions, Proposals, and Foundations (1), Historical Development (2), Contemporary Context (3), Biblical Considerations (4), Theological Considerations (5), Arenas of Application (6).
Chapter 3 entitled Definitions of Complementarianism and Egalitarianism and Their Relationship to Complementarity was particularly helpful due to Allison's goal to faithfully represent both positions in a concise and accessible manner. He did this masterfully and I would assume that both sides of the conversation are satisfied with his presentation of their positions.
Throughout the volume Allison interacts with scholars on both sides of the debate while seeking to contribute his own view on how men and women relate to one another. Part 2 (Historical Development), Part 3 (Contemporary Context), and Part 4 (Biblical Considerations) were particularly helpful in digesting various components of the conversation and also understanding Allison's proposal of complementarity.
Considering what the volume sent to accomplish, this was a helpful book. It emphasizes the equality of both men and women mutually support one another relationally, familiarly, vocationally, and ecclesially for their individual and corporate flourishing. There is much that both Complementarians and Egalitarians will appreciate about this work although both sides will feel like the author did not go far enough in his application. He states that his goal was not to exhaustively combat either position at the beginning of the book when he writes, "A hoped-for outcome of this book is to appropriately extend a bridge across the chasm separating evangelical Christian from evangelical Christian and evangelical churches from evangelical churches" (Pg. 8). This is a noble goal, although this issue will continue to be debated and divided over, as it should. Additionally, he says "I do not adjudicate between these two positions in terms of their interpretations of Scripture, their theological foundations, and their applications. Such an assessment is beyond the purpose and scope of this book" (Pg. 21).
If this book is read with the appropriate perspective in mind it can be a helpful resource for those wading into the discussion on Gender Roles in the Evangelical World.
This book is a treasure. Never have I so fully agreed with a work on men and women. It was affirming, encouraging, and uplifting. Allison moved me beyond merely applicational concerns about roles to the very essence of what it means to be a gendered individual. I regard this as a definitive contribution to the conversation—and I’m deeply glad Dr. Allison wrote it.
Gregg Allison is a careful theologian and his appreciation for nuance and clarity comes out in this book. At a high level, Allison attempts to define and defend a biblical vision of gender complementarity. He draws heavily from Sister Prudence Allen’s work on the philosophical “concept of woman,” ultimately endorsing her position of integral sex complementarity. For Allison, “Complementarity is God’s design for his male and female image bearers to fill out and mutually support one another relationally, familially, vocationally, and ecclesially for their individual and corporate flourishing” (xiii). Further, “Complementarity affirms three principles: equal dignity, significant differentiation, and flourishing interdependence” (xiii). The book proceeds to defend this definition.
In doing so, Allison builds quite a few fences. He specifically says he is not proposing a third way between complementarianism and egalitarianism, which he says are primarily ways of accounting for biblical gender roles rather than the more foundational question of the nature of men and women. It is this foundational question--the question of nature--that Allison seeks to answer with his book.
The content of the book is divided into three basic (interrelated) topics: history, bible, and theology. His historical overview of Western culture’s philosophical development of the “concept of woman” (largely summarizing Allen) and his overview of the development of modern feminism(s) are insightful. While I understand Allison’s purpose is to trace Western views here, there is room for further development that includes a survey of views from the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible rather than the Western philosophical tradition, since that impacts the interpretation of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament texts (since the Hebrew Bible is the primary conceptual framework of the NT writers).
Allison’s treatment of key biblical passages is both helpful and puzzling. Helpful, because of the sheer volume of biblical passages brought to bear. He looks at about fifty passages and explores their relevance for his definition of complementarity. In order to do this, he first outlines how various complementarian and egalitarian scholars interpret many of these key passages differently as it relates to gender roles. Then, without adjudicating which interpretation of roles from each passage is to be preferred, he draws conclusions about complementarity (again, not about roles, but about nature) that he believes both sides should be able to affirm. In this, I think he is largely successful.
However, the treatment of these passages and their categorization into complementarian positions and egalitarian positions feels, at times, puzzling. The representative scholars used to represent “the complementarian position(s)” and “the egalitarian position(s)” change from passage to passage, resulting in a bit of an odd patchwork. Sometimes, a position described as “complementarian” is rigidly narrow or not sufficiently nuanced. Other times, a diversity of opinion within the range of complementarian (and egalitarian) interpretation was not addressed. I am not certain this is Allison’s fault; this may simply be a feature of the head-spinning landscape of the complementarian-egalitarian debate. However, the decision to only provide a small number of representative scholars for each text is unfortunate, leaving one with the impression that the viewpoints as stated are the best (or only) options within each broader position. Allison is clearly aware of the interpretive difficulties in each passage, along with the various scholars who have contributed to addressing those difficulties. (Side note: One improvement for a future edition may be to provide a (selected?) bibliography for each passage being treated). Still, the sheer number of biblical passages that Allison examines and applies to his definition of complementarity is, truly, significant and persuasive (though not without some lingering specific questions).
Lastly, after having analyzed complementarity from a historical and biblical perspective, Allison considers complementarity from a theological perspective. Specifically, he looks at men and women as male and female image bearers, images and metaphors of the church, and the offices of prophet, priest, and king in the New Covenant. In each, he argues that each of these images strongly supports his definition of gender complementarity, pointing to the “equal dignity, significant differentiation, and flourishing interdependence” of men and women for their “individual and corporate flourishing” (xiii).
On several occasions, however, the particular image is not treated with the kind of multi-layered complexity that I think the Bible gives. For example, while from one perspective God alone is our Father in heaven, rendering all believers as fundamentally brothers and sisters in Christ, from another perspective, there are different kinds of relationships even within that fundamental spiritual siblingship (cf. 1 Tim. 5:1-3). There is a kind of corporate reality that exists at the same time as a particular reality. A similar dynamic seems to be in play in his discussion of the priesthood. This desire for further nuance notwithstanding, Allison capably (and at this point, I think convincingly) defends his primary thesis: that gender complementarity is a historically, biblically, and theologically sound foundation upon which evangelicals should build their understanding of gender roles. Conversely, evangelicals should not build their understanding of gendered nature on a theological position on gender roles.
This is not to say I am left without questions. For example, Allison is crystal clear that we are gendered “all the way down” as men and women, and that these biological differences are good and right (see especially pp.461-466) Further, he affirms that these biological differences impact the way we embody and live out the common human virtues. However, there is little discussion about how and in what ways these biological and physiological differences work their way out into living out common human virtues. Further, do those differences carry any theologically significant lessons? If so, what? How can we know what they are? Though he doesn’t answer these questions, Allison provides a framework that, hopefully, future theologians will be able to build on in addressing these particulars.
Positively, the book is highly organized and easy to follow. This is perhaps also one of the book’s downsides: it reads like a massive expanded outline. While the content is tremendous, its style and presentation can feel tedious at times. (Though, there are also occasional jewels like this: “[Self-denial] is not an eradication of oneself that leads to passivity, a docility that suffers involuntarily even to the point of tolerating sin and evil that should be repulsed. Resignation in the face of wickedness that is done in the name of self-denial is a betrayal of true sacrifice, not an admirable application of it” (p.502). Incredible truth and incredible prose, there).
This minor style critique aside, I think this book largely succeeds where it wanted to succeed: defining and defending a biblical vision of gender complementarity (nature) that serves as a foundation upon which to (later) formulate a particular understanding of gender roles. I look forward to seeing how complementarian and egalitarian scholars respond to Allison’s overall arguments and approach.
This is a massive book by a very competent scholar - but I think it falls short of its intended goal. Allison sets out to define and defend a vision of "complementarity", a theological position that affirms the dignity, interdependence, and significant difference between men and women. That's not a bad summary of a biblical vision of gender roles - except that, when it comes to the issues that have actually divided complementarians or egalitarians, Allison either attempts to avoid the controversy or is subtly biased towards egalitarian readings. But one has to eventual decide: are husbands and wives called solely to mutual submission...or must wives submit to their husbands? Can women be ordained as pastors, or not? Endless deferral of the question will not help the church.
Furthermore, throughout the book there is an antipathy towards any kind of theological controversy, as though all disagreement is necessarily sinful and disgraceful. The problem is that this bias won't square with Scripture: there are some teachings that must be named, opposed (1 Timothy 1:18-20), or silenced (Titus 1:11). And the good deposit must be guarded (1 Tim 6:20-21), and the teaching carefully guarded (1 Tim 4:16) - or the very salvation of the pastor and the church are at stake. I fear Allison's book avoids that kind of necessary theological controversy - and the result is a weakening of the church.
While I appreciate the heart and skill behind Gregg Allison’s book Complementarity, I am a little confused as to its purpose. This book seeks to put forth a position that Allison calls complementarity- not a middle path between complementarianism and egalitarianism, but something else. He says he is not offering a third-way or middle-way position but rather to describe and apply the unique contributions of complementarity. The main elements are that men and women are equal in dignity, significant differentiation, and flourishing interdependence. But in practice it comes off as complementarianism but seeking to show how there are common principles shared with egalitarianism. He even states that complementarity is the vision embraced by complementarianism by Kevin DeYoung, which seems to confuse the issue. He does do a good job surveying passages and issues and showing the different sides and their arguments… but there seems to be a lack of conviction to coming down on a side or stating which has stronger arguments. So a good overview of arguments but lacks a little.