Dalrock observes the evolution of Christian complementarianism:
From the beginning complementarianism has been an effort to split the
difference with Christian feminists (egalitarians). This comes
naturally from their belief that feminism isn’t a manifestation of the
same discontent that caused Eve to want to be like God in the garden of
Eden. Instead, complementarians see feminism as a misguided (but
entirely understandable) rebellion caused by the provocation of cruel
Complementarians believe if they are nice enough to women, feminist
rebellion will go away as the reason for the rebellion is thereby
withdrawn (examples here and here). This requires compromise when Scripture offends feminists, and this has lead complementarians to invent novel interpretations of Scripture.
But this compromise is by no means a one time deal. The compromises of
yesterday become the starting position for bargaining today, and
today’s new compromise will become the starting point for bargaining
We can see this with the complementarian position on spiritual
headship. Complementarians had to find an interpretation for Ephesians
5:26-27** that formally set them apart from egalitarians but caused
minimal offense to feminists. But no amount of compromise with
feminists will actually avoid offending feminists, and this has lead to
multiple complementarian stances on the topic of spiritual headship.
In the latest CBMW quarterly journal David Croteau describes the two predominant complementarian compromises on spiritual headship, and then proposes rejecting the concept of spiritual headship altogether.
Theology: the art of convincing Christians that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says and God doesn’t want them to do what the Bible tells them to do.
And any woman who identifies herself as a “feminist” – or man, for that matter – should be expelled from the Church, no hesitation, no debate, no questions asked. Feminism is observably less compatible with Christianity than Satanism or Islam.