Men and women are different. I would not think that anyone really wants to argue against this statement. I would not think that anyone wants to argue with this statement, but my thinking does not rule the debate. In fact, there are those who would argue against what I believe. Let me back up.

There are some things that women are better at than men.

There are some things that men are better at than women.

These two presuppositions help form my understanding of the great gender debate. I am a complementarian. Really, I am what you might call a soft complementarian. I believe that God has created the sexes uniquely. This uniqueness contributes to individual uniqueness.

Before I continue with my position, let me give a brief overview of the positions and their respective responses. Please understand that some arguments are going to be more central than others. As well, some will have more validity. I have simply tried to give a representation of the debate without necessarily endorsing each argument. I say this to prevent straw-men from either side.

A survey of the positions:

Complementarianism:

Position: The Bible teaches that men and women are of equal worth, dignity, and responsibility before God (ontological equality). The Bible also teaches that men and women have different roles to play in society, the family, and the church (functional inequality). These roles do not compete but complement each other. This is illustrated (not evidenced) in the doctrine of the Trinity. All members of the Godhead are equal in essence (ontological equality), but have distinct roles (functional inequality).

Adherents: Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Douglas Moo, Charles Swindoll, John MacArthur, Tom Schreiner, Daniel Wallace.

Egalitarianism:

Position: The Bible teaches that all people are of equal value. Therefore, women are not in any sense, functionally or ontologically, subservient to men. Women and men hold ministry positions according to their gifts, not their gender. The principle of mutual submission teaches that husbands and wives are to submit to each other equally.

Adherents: N.T. Wight, Gregory Boyd, Stanley Grenz, William Webb, Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, Ruth Tucker.

Arguments for Complementarianism:

1. The Bible illustrates male leadership from the beginning of creation.

  • Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:20).
  • Adam named Eve (Genesis 2:23).
  • God approached Adam first after the fall (Genesis 2:9).
  • There were no women priests.
  • The God-ordained rulers of Israel were male.
  • Jesus’ apostles were all male.
  • The bishops/presbyters/pastors were all male (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus. 1:6).

Egalitarian Response:

These illustrations of male leadership were descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, male leadership, like slavery, was a cultural phenomenon that God chose not to overthrow at the time.

2. Eve was created as a completer. In order for one to be incomplete, he or she must lack something. Adam lacked something that caused God to say, “It is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Eve was created to complete that which was lacking. It is important to realize that she was not simply a second attempt at perfection. Eve was created with essential characteristics that Adam did not have. Likewise, Adam was created with characteristics that Eve did not have. They were created to complement each other. Therefore, the role distinction is essential for humanity to be complete.

Egalitarian Response:

While it is agreed that the woman was created to complete humanity (not man), this does not necessitate that God intended a functional hierarchy.

3. Paul constantly had to address women who were failing to understand the importance of their role as women or who were in outright rebellion against it. These women were blurring the God-ordained roles and attempting to usurp the role of man. (1 Tim. 2:12-15; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5)

Egalitarian Response:

Paul was writing to cultural situations that do not demand universal application. For example, when Paul wrote to Timothy in Ephesus, there were women who were former cult prostitutes and uneducated (typically only receiving secondhand instruction from their husbands) attempting to “fill the pulpit.” He used Eve to illustrate how destructive secondhand information can be. He does not use the events in the Garden as a universal principle. Paul’s command here is then purely cultural.

4. The New Testament writers constantly had to address men who abused their role as leaders. This is part of the curse. The instruction to men, however, is not to stop leading, but to lead in a way that is sensitive, encouraging, and loving.

Egalitarian Response:

These passages in the New Testament do not regulate how husbands are to rule, but do instruct on how they are to relate. They are to love their wives and not rule over them.

5. The curse involves women failing to appreciate their role (”you will want to control”) and men failing to dignify the role of women (”he will rule over you”—word “rule” speaks of rule by oppressive force). It is for this reason that Paul has more instructions to husbands about dignifying their wives than he does to wives submitting to their husbands (Ephesians 5:25a, 28, 33a; 1 Pet. 3:7; Col. 3:9). If men fail to recognize the value of the role of women, this gives reason for a rebellion against this role.

Genesis 3:16
“To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet you will want to control your husband, and he will rule over you.’”

Egalitarian Response:

Male leadership, rulership, domination, whatever name it goes by, was a product of the Fall, not creation. In Christ, this aspect of the Fall needs to be redeemed by recognizing functional equality.

Arguments for Egalitarianism

1. Patriarchalism (male domination) is a cultural phenomenon that God chose not to deal with, but to regulate as he also did with slavery. But we can see from Scripture that this allowance has a redemptive focus and direction.

Complementarian Response:

While it is true that God sometimes does not reform cultural issues immediately, a husband’s leadership is not a cultural issue any more than children obeying their parents (Eph. 6:1) is a cultural issue.

2. Male leadership and domination is a result of the Fall that is reversed when we are restored in Christ.

Genesis 3:16
“To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’”

The basic idea here is that it was not God’s original intention to have the male “rule over” the female. As a result of the Fall, and in the fallen state, men sinfully rule over women.

Galatians 3:28
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

As a result of redemption these cultural barriers are removed. The church should not recognize any essential distinctions that determine roles.

Complementarian Response:

There is much evidence that clearly shows that male leadership is not a result of the Fall:

  • Adam was created first.
  • Eve was created as a completer.
  • Adam named Eve.
  • God spoke to Adam first after the Fall.
  • Adam, not Eve, represents the human race in the Fall (Romans 5:12-19).
  • The curse brought distortion of previous roles, not the introduction of new roles.

3. The Bible has many examples of women who were leaders, teachers, and prophetesses who exercised authority over men. These are “break away” redemptions which evidence that cultural norms are not God’s norms.

  • Miriam is stated to be a leader of the Exodus alongside Moses and Aaron (Micah 6:4).
  • Deborah served as a judge in Israel (Judges 4-5).
  • Huldah was a prophetess consulted by both men and women (2 Kings 22:14).
  • There were prophetesses in the New Testament who carried the authority of their office teaching men (Luke 2:36-38; Acts 2:16-18; 21:8-9; 1 Corinthians 11:4-5).

Complementarian Response:

Many of the examples, such as Deborah, are the exception because of the lack of male leadership. (As one commentator of Judges has put it, the subtitle of the book should be “Where have all the men gone?”). Women, however, did effectively prophesy and hold leadership positions in the early church and can in today’s church as well. The debate is not whether women can be leaders or teachers, but whether they can be in authority over men.

4. History has conclusively demonstrated that women have been very effective spiritual leaders and pastors.

  • Catherine Booth
  • Joan of Arc
  • Amy Carmichael
  • Corrie Ten Boom
  • Elisabeth Elliott
  • Joyce Meyers
  • Ruth Tucker :)

Complementarian Response:

Again, it is agreed that women have been and are very effective leaders. But referring to the success of women who have occupied a position of spiritual leadership over men is pragmatic at best. The exception should never determine the rule. (Do we let it do so in other areas?)

5. Despite claims to the contrary, it is hard to see how stating that women are denied the opportunity of exercising spiritual headship over men does not demean the ontological value of women.

Complementarian Response:

Stating that people are genetically prepared for particular services is not a dishonor and it does not promote an ontological hierarchy. Acknowledgment is easily made that men are not prepared for childbirth, but this in no way devalues their person; it just substantiates that their role is not childbearing.

There is the long overview. I will speak more succinctly and candidly to this issue in upcoming blogs.

Where do you stand? Was this helpful?

(This is a hot topic, I know. This is why I ask you to go out of your way to be respectful.)

There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.

Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.

Theological Word of the Day

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!