Soft Complementarians: Holding to Headship and the Gifting of Women

The place of women serving, leading, and teaching in the Church is frequently a topic of discussion, seemingly heightened in 2023 as Christian denominations such as Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA) and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) have made national news over their discussions and decisions regarding the role of women in a local church. The CMA has adopted a “soft complementarian” position where women can be given the title of “pastor,” and the SBC has voted to disfellowship two churches for women serving in pastoral roles.

Churches making changes in how they have functioned and in what titles women hold has surely caused some of the debate, but the broader culture has also elevated the conversation by effectively linking discussions on race, women, and sexuality together. The culture essentially says, “If you advocate for one, you must advocate for all three. If you are for women and for minorities, then you must also be for affirming same-sex relationships.” Thus, some Christians who hold to a historical view of sexuality (that sex is God’s gift within the confines of a marriage between a man and woman) assume that if a Christian or a church has a view that women should exercise their spiritual gifts of leadership and teaching within the church, then the leader or church must be on a trajectory away from the Church’s historic position on sexuality.

The concern is not without merit, as denominations who have “gone affirming” moved to an egalitarian position first. Likewise, the “trajectory hermeneutic”—an approach to reading and studying the Bible that does not view the Scripture as having a final word but rather asks “where is the Bible going?” or “what is the trajectory of the Bible on this topic?”—is often applied to gender roles within a church before it is applied to sexuality.

While I am understanding and appreciative of the concern, it is inaccurate to say that all who believe women should lead and teach got there through a trajectory hermeneutic—as some hold tightly to the Word being complete and abhor the view that Scripture is not finished or authoritative. They also don’t adopt the culture’s view of race, women, and sexuality, but receive their conviction for all three from Scripture—that the Image of God is placed on every ethnicity and both genders and that the historic view of marriage must not be compromised because it is a beautiful metaphor of the gospel. Groups like the Wesleyans, denominations like the Church of God (Anderson), and many Pentecostal groups hold tightly to the historic position on sexuality and have women pastoring and preaching within their churches. They got to their position on “women in ministry” not because of the culture or because of a trajectory hermeneutic but because of passages like “your sons and daughters will prophesy” (Acts 2:17) and often their view of the Kingdom of God. One may disagree with their application of certain passages without accusing them of being on a slippery slope away from the counter-cultural convictions about sexuality that they faithfully hold. It is helpful to ask someone how they got where they are before assuming it was because of cultural compromise or a trajectory hermeneutic.

“How did you get there?” would also be a wise and gracious question to pose to the soft complementarian position.

“Soft complementarian,” as it is commonly called, is neither “complementarian” or “egalitarian”—the two views that are typically featured in the debates. Some prefer “broad, gift-based complementarian” to describe their position, and I use that term interchangeably with “soft complementarian.” I have pastored Mariners Church for the last five years, a church which has never been affiliated with a denomination and has held the same “soft complementarian” position for over three decades, a position deeply influenced by my predecessor’s mentor—none other than John Stott. (If these terms are new to you, the attached position paper could be helpful.)

Broad, Gifted-Based Complementarian

In the debates between complementarians and egalitarians, the position of “soft complementarian” has often been misrepresented. I am not expecting to convince anyone to hold a soft complementarian position, as if I am going to introduce some new way of thinking or passage that has been overlooked. In times of debate, most of our views only get crystalized. I have read the thoughtful counterpoints to each point I will make by scholars I respect and can articulate them fairly and graciously. Instead of trying to convince you, I hope to help you understand and be able to articulate the soft complementarian position. Before you dismiss soft complementarianism as a middle-way attempt to appease both sides, please consider that John Stott and J.I. Packer might be called soft complementarians today. You may not agree with them, but it would be kind and generous to try and understand the viewpoint. I have joked that the only people who believe there is such a thing as a soft complementarian position are soft complementarians, since stronger complementarians view us as egalitarians who have gone too far, and egalitarians view us as complementarians who have not gone far enough.

What Makes Us Complementarian?

In theology, the order of things matters so much. For example, someone who is reformed in their view of salvation believes regeneration comes before conversion and someone who is not reformed believes conversion happens before regeneration. When it comes to being a complementarian, a lot comes down to when male headship entered our world. An egalitarian believes male headship happened after the Fall or is even a product of the Fall. A complementarian believes male headship happened before the Fall: Eve coming from Adam’s side, Adam naming Eve, and the Apostle Paul rooting male headship in Genesis 2. We are complementarian because we believe in biblical headship—both in the home and the Church.

What Makes Us Broad and Gift-Based?

Why put a qualifier in front of complementarian? We believe the spiritual gifts were given by God to His people to serve His body, the Church. When we read the lists of spiritual gifts in the Scripture, we don’t see any mention of gender. Women were given gifts of teaching, leadership, and exhortation to bless His people. And this is where soft complementarians diverge from other complementarians: we believe pastoring is a spiritual gift. When we read Ephesians 4:11-13 and see “pastors/teachers,” we believe women are able to use those gifts as we don’t see gender in that passage. We are broad, gift-based complementarians because we believe all spiritual gifts are given to both men and women.