Let the Shepherd Lead

In reading Aaron Renn’s book Life in the Negative World, I was surprised to find him in chapter 11 declare Complementarianism an essentially bankrupt doctrine in light of the negative world.

I find little disagreement with his assessments that egalitarianism and what he calls thin complementarianism will eventually fall in line with the culture. I also am not surprised that he has identified “neopatriarchy” as the a revived third option, the most conservative option dealing with gender.

I even find him rightly assessing the strengths of complementarianism and neopatriarchy opposed to the current culture. Complementarianism rightly posits male leadership as the main distinctive between culture’s view of gender and that of Scripture. Neopatriarchy posits the reestablishment of an essential, productive household as a distinctive between culture and the church.

I find his assessment of Complementarianism in general to be more true of thin complementarianism. Having experienced this kind of thinking in a flashpoint of my ministry, I can agree that what he calls thin complementarianism is nothing more than triangulation. That attempted middle way will not stand for long in a negative world.

But I do not find his argument cogent when it comes to what he calls thick complementarianism. In fact my key issue with his chapter is that he qoutes but does not address Kevin DeYoung’s point on page 179. While not phrased directly as a question, DeYoung’s quote calls into question whether thin complementarianism is genuinely complementarian. Renn’s description of  thick complementarianism on page 167 as  emphasizing  “a more substantial gender complementarity, arguing women should be more focused on the home” sounds suspiciously like his description of neopatriarchy.

A new view might be required and defined as it relates to how the church presents the Bible’s teaching on gender and the home. However, the problem does not seem to be about true complementarian thought and practice but its perversion in thin complementarianism.