When churches stay focused on their primary calling, they inject hope into this world. And when a nonbeliever walks into a God-fearing, biblical church, they will find hope for themselves, and for humanity, because they will see person after person who has been transformed.

Ministry is not easy. It can discourage and distract. At times, it’s uncomfortable, precarious, and lonely. For most pastors, it requires years of labor in obscurity, shepherding small congregations and having no platform for broader influence. With all the challenges of ministry, why would anyone want the job? Why is pastoral ministry worth it? Pastors in the thick of the struggle will not endure unless they remember the glory of the church.
Nothing is more noble, more wonderful, more amazing than the work of God in and through the church. The church is not one of many institutions in this world. It is the institution of God for all time. It is an honor to participate in the church’s eternal work. Pastors must be convinced of that reality. And the best place to see that reality on display—and to find strength and encouragement for the ministry—is in the book of Acts.
Many treat the book of Acts as if it was a description of how to do church. While there is plenty of practical ecclesiology in the book, that is not the primary focus. Instead of a book on what the church does, Acts is a book about what the church is. If it was a how-to manual for the church, congregations today would still speak in tongues, or have mandatory church services on the third floor of a building where the pastor would preach until sleep overcomes a congregant and he falls out the window to his death (see Acts 20). If the events of Acts were all normative for church ministry, missionaries could only travel by boat and prayer meetings could only happen at night and in homes. But as we survey the deeper purpose of Acts—to provide us a glorious definition of the church—we find four realities that make the church the world’s most glorious institution.
The Church Bears Witness
In Acts 1:8, Christ says to His disciples: “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” When Christ calls the first generation of the church “My witnesses” he is identifying the church’s central identity. The church is not a political organization or a social club. It does not enact societal change or engage in social justice. Instead, the church proclaims Christ and it shows the world what life is like in His kingdom. It is a sample of a coming day when Christ will reign over every inch of this earth.
That reign is to be presented throughout the world. As Jesus says, the gospel message must go to “Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the end of the earth.” In all the globe, Christians are to describe and exclaim the glories of Christ. Because the church is a sample of the coming glory (Jas 1:18), the church must stop acting as if it’s responsible for the renovation and redemption of culture. When churches lose sight of their foundational purpose—to bear witness to Christ—they start social movements and become distracted with the things of this earth. They forget that they are a witness to Christ, and a sample of His coming kingdom.
When churches stay focused on their primary calling, they inject hope into this world. And when a nonbeliever walks into a God-fearing, biblical church, they will find hope for themselves, and for humanity, because they will see person after person who has been transformed.
This hope-giving is a collective task. Individuals can bear witness to Christ’s transforming work in their life, but only the church can bear witness to Christ’s transforming work for all humanity because only their will nonbelievers find people of all backgrounds, races, ages, and genders transformed (Eph 2:15). When people come to church and see individuals who would never know each other, never care for each other under normal circumstances, now united in love, service, and praise, they see an effective testimony to the power of the gospel.
Read More

Complementarianism, for many Christians, amounts to little more than a couple of narrow conclusions about wives submitting to husbands in the home and ordination in the church being reserved for men. If that’s all we have in our vision for men and women, it’s not a vision we will hold on to for long. We need to help church members (especially the younger generations) see that God didn’t create the world with one or two arbitrary commands called “complementarianism” to test our obedience in the home and in the church. God created the world with sexual differentiation at the heart of what it means to be human beings made in his image. We cannot understand the created order as we should until we understand that God made us male and female.

What is the difference between patriarchy and complementarity — and which is the better term for capturing the full vision of Christian manhood and womanhood? Most complementarians steadfastly avoid the word patriarchy, wanting to distance themselves from any associations with oppression and prejudice. On the other hand, critics of complementarianism are eager to saddle their opponents with the charge of defending patriarchy. The terms often function as a way of communicating, “I’m not that kind of conservative Christian” — to which the reply is, “Oh yes, you are!” So what is the most accurate term for those who want to recapture a lost vision of sexual differentiation and order?

Defining, to everyone’s satisfaction, terms like patriarchy and complementarity is nearly impossible. I’ll do some definitional work in a moment, but I don’t want this article to become a tedious, academic inquiry into the usage and history of these terms. I also don’t want to define the terms so that complementarity becomes a convenient gloss for “good male leadership” and patriarchy ends up meaning “bad male leadership.” To be sure, that distinction isn’t totally misguided, but if that’s all I said, my argument would be entirely predictable.

And a bit superficial. As I’ll argue in a moment, there is nothing to be gained by Christians reclaiming the term patriarchy in itself. In fact, reclaim is not even the right word, because I’m not sure Christians have ever argued for something called “patriarchy.” Complementarity is a better, safer term, with fewer negative connotations (though that is quickly changing). I’ve described myself as a complementarian hundreds of times; I’ve never called myself a patriarchalist.

Yet there is something in the broader idea of patriarchy — no matter how sinister the word itself has become — that is worth claiming. If the vision of male-female complementarity is to be more than a seemingly arbitrary commitment to men leading in the home and being pastors in the church, we cannot settle for a proper interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. Of course, careful exegesis is absolutely critical. But we need more than the right conclusions. We need to help people see that our exegetical conclusions do not just fit with the best hermeneutical principles; they fit with the way the world is and the way God made men and women.

Complementarity and Patriarchy

The idea of complementarity — that men and women were designed with a special fittedness, each for the other — is not new. The term complementarianism, however, is relatively recent. In their seminal 1991 work Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem deliberately termed their recovery mission “a vision of biblical ‘complementarity’” because they wanted to both correct the “selfish and hurtful practices” of the traditionalist view and avoid the opposite mistakes coming from evangelical feminists (14).

No one committed to intellectual honesty and fairness should treat traditionalist, hierarchicalist, or patriarchalist as synonyms for complementarianism. In coining the term complementarian, Piper and Grudem explicitly rejected the first two terms, while the third term (patriarchalist or patriarchy or patriarchal) is never used in a positive sense in the book. “If one word must be used to describe our position,” they wrote, “we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women” (14). Thirty years later, this vision of complementarity is still worth carefully defining and gladly defending.

The term patriarchy is much harder to define. Strictly speaking, patriarchy is simply the Greek word meaning “father rule.” There is nothing in its etymology to make the term an epithet of abuse. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are often called “the patriarchs” (Romans 9:5, for example). The spiritual leader of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. In a generic sense, every Christian believes in patriarchy because we affirm the rule and authority of God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

Despite these positive associations, as a sociological and historical category, patriarchy is almost always used in a pejorative sense. Here, for example, is the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry on patriarchy.

Patriarchy is an institutionalized social system in which men dominate over others, but can also refer to dominance over women specifically; it can also extend to a variety of manifestations in which men have social privileges over others to cause exploitation or oppression, such as through male dominance of moral authority and control of property.

In this one (long) sentence, we have a host of pejorative words: dominate, dominance (2x), exploitation, and oppression. No one is expected to read this definition and think of patriarchy as something good, or even something that could possibly be good.

In a recent longform article in The Guardian, Charlotte Higgins argues that at its simplest, patriarchy “conveys the existence of a societal structure of male supremacy that operates at the expense of women.” Higgins admits the patriarchy is virtually dead as an academic idea — too blunt and monolithic a concept to be useful — but in popular usage the term has experienced an unprecedented revival, one Higgins supports. “Only ‘patriarchy’ seems to capture the peculiar elusiveness of gendered power,” she writes. Higgins’s street-level definition is helpful insofar as it reveals that for most people, including most Christians (I suspect), patriarchy is shorthand for all the ways our world promotes male supremacy and encourages female oppression.

If that’s patriarchy, the world can have it. It’s not a term you’ll find in Christian confessional statements from the past. It’s not a term you’ll find employed frequently (or at all) in the tradition of the church as it defends biblical views of the family, the church, and society. As a conservative, Reformed, evangelical Christian, I applaud the vision of “equality with beneficial differences” and stand resolutely opposed to all forms of domination, exploitation, and oppression.

Cost of Dismantling Patriarchy

Why not end the article right here? Complementarianism is good; patriarchy is bad. Case closed. Enough said, right?

Not quite. We should be careful not to banish patriarchy to the ash heap of history too quickly. For starters, we should question the notion that patriarchy equals oppression. In his book Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe, Steven Ozment argues that family life, even in the patriarchal past, is not wholly different from our own age. Parents loved their children, husbands performed household duties, and most women preferred marriage and homemaking to other arrangements.

History is complex and rarely allows for meta-theories and monocausal explanations. If women had fewer opportunities and rights in the past (almost everyone had fewer opportunities and fewer rights), women also lived enmeshed in stronger communities, and their roles as wife and mother were more highly honored. Accounting for differences in economic prosperity, it is entirely debatable (and, perhaps, ultimately unknowable) whether women are happier in the present than they were in the past.

Related Posts:

Where lawful authorities are not submitted to nor honor shown to those to whom it is due, or when those in such positions abuse and misuse that which God has given, no blessing can be expected. In fact, the Bible and experience shows the disastrous consequences of unruly children, domineering husbands, rebelling citizens, wicked rulers, and selfish shepherds. But there is temporal blessing and prosperity promised to the household, church, and society where the fifth commandment is obeyed.

“Honor your father and your mother.” This command is part of that perfect law that is holy, righteous, and good because it is a reflection of the one who himself is those things. It was once engraved on the tablets of stone, was exemplified in the life of Jesus, and it is now written on the heart of believers by the ministry of the Holy Spirit and affirmed by Apostolic authority. This command convicts, restrains, and directs the Christian life.
The fifth commandment is the first of what is often called the second table of the law. When Jesus was asked which was the great commandment he answered: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:27-39). Love to God and love to neighbor are the two parts of God’s unchanging law. In the division of the Ten Commandments the first four teach us our duty to God and the last six our duty to neighbor. The priority is given to the first table as the greatest and out of a love and service to God we are to love one another. Love to neighbor consists, in part, in giving “honor to whom honor is owed” (Romans 13:7).
The fifth commandment establishes that by God’s design and order there are positions of honor and authority. After all, a part of what it means for children to honor their parents is obedience: “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord” (Colossians 3:20). But the authorities that God has established are not autonomous, boundless, or lawless. Rather, they are derived and contingent upon the authority of God: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1).
Read More
Related Posts: