The Complement

Compliments, we all like them. It's nice to hear good things said about you. So if we hear that God made Eve to complement Adam, we think, "How nice! God designed Eve to recognize the good in Adam." And, of course, we've misheard the words. You see (if you followed the spelling), the two words -- "compliment" and "complement" -- sound the same (homophones), but are not the same.

We're living in a society aimed at egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the philosophy of "equal", so you'd likely say, "So?" Egalitarianism is the belief in the equality of all people, with special attention to economic, social, and political life. "We say again, 'So?'" There is even "Christian egalitarianism", a movement within Christendom that stresses gender equality -- the idea that there are no gender-based limitations of what functions or roles male or female can fulfill in the home, the church, and the society. "We're still waiting ... so?"

A nation built on equality seems a suited place for egalitarianism, and we do embrace the notion that "all men are created equal" and even that the "men" in that phrase means "people" (not just males). It seems that we've pushed the envelope of "equal" farther than the Bible and, much more importantly, God intended. But, I am not writing this to debate egalitarianism. I'm writing this to make a point about the complement.

The counter-view to egalitarianism is complementarianism. Now, I favor complimentarianism -- the belief (that I just made up) that people should express appreciation for the good things they see in others. That's not complementarianism. Complementarianism is the belief that God designed men and women as complementary, two halves that make a whole. A "complement" is that which completes what is lacking in another. In a complementary arrangement, the pieces are of equal value, but they simply differ in skills, abilities, roles, and the like. It's not about worth. In 1 Cor 12, Paul describes the body of Christ like a physical body comprised of different components. He is clear on two essential points. First, there are different parts with different roles and functions. Second, they are all of equal value. That is complementarianism. And it's biblical.

Of course, the term is used almost exclusively to refer to gender roles, so let's limit the discussion to that. And, in fact, I'm not even thinking about the debate of whether or not wives should submit to husbands (Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6), or whether or not women should take authority over men in the church (1 Tim 2:12-14) or any of that kind of "patriarchal" structure (1 Cor 11:3). No, that's not my point. What I'm thinking about (get ready for a leap) is eHarmony. ("Okay, we're not asking 'So?' ever again. That was a huge leap.") I know, but follow me. What is it that we look for in our relationships? Isn't the aim "compatibility"? That's what eHarmony offers. They've even registered the term and patented their "Compatibility Matching System". And I'm quite sure you've heard of their (again, registered) phrase, "29 Dimensions of Compatibility". Wow! Makes you just warm all over, doesn't it? So while those inferior sites offer a picture and a phrase, you can find out if you are truly compatible with someone and that makes for a long-term relationship ... right?

Funny thing. When God made Eve, He didn't speak in terms of compatibility. He spoke in terms of complement.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18).

What interesting language! First, we see that Man (Adam) had shortcomings. Obviously one was that he was alone, and "alone" was not good (the first thing in God's creation that He said was "not good"). But clearly there was more because he needed a "helper". Beyond that, we see that his particular shortcomings were individual because Eve was designed to "fit" his particular needs. I know, I know, egalitarians are dancing about cutting themselves and calling down curses. (Okay, over the top, I know, but you get the idea.) This sounds like I'm suggesting that Eve was "less" somehow. That's like saying, "A car is valuable, but the gasoline required to run it is 'less somehow'." Yeah, right, try running the car without it and see how valuable that car is. In fact, in pure terms of money, if a car cost $25000, ran for, say, 200,000 miles, and got, say, 30 miles per gallon, at current prices you'd have spent about the same amount for the gas as for the car. No, this is not about value or worth. It is about ... complement. It is about filling what is lacking, about helping, about bridging the gaps, about making two halves into a whole. According to Genesis, that was God's design.

Imagine, then, a different approach. Imagine a fellow who, instead of seeking a "compatible mate", thought, "What do I have to offer to a potential mate?" You see, the concept of "complement" is not "We're the same", but precisely "We're different", and the differences are the gaps we can fill for each other. Imagine that kind of thinking rather than "compatibility" thinking. Imagine a single guy who approaches his relationships with women in terms of his shortcomings that match her strengths. Doesn't that elevate her value? And to the married I say this. Since I believe -- and Scripture seems to say -- that God works all things after the counsel of His will, then I'd have to believe that my spouse is God's will for me, and your spouse is God's will for you. Therefore, it would seem, if God's design carries through, that he or she is intended as your complement. Sure, sure, we need some compatibility, some commonality. For starters, we need to share a common Savior. But is it possible that, in our rush to compatibility and our embrace of egalitarianism, that we're missing a key intent that God has built into marriage in general and our spouses in particular? Is it possible that the differences are just as precious as the similarities? Is it possible that your spouse was designed by God to make your half into a whole? Well, I ask the question, but I would contend that it isn't a possibility; it's a certainty. Now, if we could learn to appreciate that in our spouses, I think it would be a good thing.