A recent controversial topic deals with the issue of the biblical understanding of manhood and womanhood, i.e., the roles of men and women in the respective spheres of family and church. Two prominent terms emerged in the last half-century to express the concepts that divide the evangelical world: egalitarian and complementarian perspectives. Although the terms are modern constructs, the theological analysis stretches back to chapters one and two of Genesis. This essay cannot address the many nuances of this subject or the Scripture that addresses the issue. Suffice it to say that this post will give brief definitions and then explain this author’s positional point of view.
According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary, “Egalitarianism is a major Christian view on gender roles that holds that women and men properly have equal and interchangeable roles in the home, church, and wider society. Egalitarianism holds that women can hold all the same roles in church leadership as men, and that in a marriage authority is properly shared equally between husband and wife. Egalitarianism also holds that women and men may properly hold the same positions in society more broadly” (John D. Barry, “Egalitarianism,” TLBD). The proof-verse that the egalitarian perspective relies on is Galatians 3:18 that says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Egalitarians interpret this verse to mean that in the redemption offered by Jesus Christ, all distinctions about gender are removed. In other words, there aren’t any male or female “roles.” A male or female can do or be anything within the sphere of the family or church or, in some cases, the broader society. However, that is not what Paul means. Heath Lambert rightly puts it plainly, Paul “does not mean there is no longer any distinction between men and women, but rather all men and women have equal access to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, just as do Jews and Greeks, and slaves and freemen” (Heath Lambert, A Theology of Biblical Counseling, 205).
Next, the Lexham Bible Dictionary states, “Complementarianism is a major Christian view on gender roles that holds that women and men are spiritually equal but have distinct and complementary roles in the home, church, and wider society. Complementarian positions usually hold that certain positions in church leadership are reserved for men only, and that in a marriage the husband is properly the head of the family and has some degree of authority over the wife. Some complementarian positions also hold that women and men have different roles outside home and church life in broader society” (John D. Barry, “Egalitarianism,” TLBD). I hold this position, and expanding on the definition will explain why.
If one were to meditate on Galatians 3:28 a little more, they would understand that Jesus’s redemption of men and women commits them to an equivalent acceptance of both genders. Videlicet, men and women are compeers in creation and redemption, but there are apparent differences between them that range from biologically physical to socially functional. Some, like Patrick Schreiner, argue that God designed the complementarian perspective in men and women naturally: “While debates continue to rage about gender roles, headship and submission, or same-sex sexuality, more fundamental questions must undergird these discussions. For too long we have had the ought conversations without pressing into the is. A deeper why exists that grounds why men and women are equal in essence but complementary not only in roles but in being. Manhood and womanhood are not social constructs. They are written into nature” (Patrick Schreiner, “Man and Woman: Toward an Ontology” eikon)
Some opposed to complementarianism claim it is a man-made doctrine. However, as Denny Burk states, “This is a faithful summary of what is taught in Holy Scripture, and our consciences are bound to Scripture as God’s inerrant and unchanging word. God’s truth is good for us. His special and distinct design of male and female image-bearers is all for our blessing and flourishing. These differences bear witness to the most precious gift of all — the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:32)” (Denny Burk, “Is Complementarianism a Man-Made Doctrine?” eikon). Others opposed to complementarianism, such as Chuck Romig, believe that men have a psychological issue with hierarchical status. He states, “the inclination for men to view relationship dynamics, including simple conversations, as negotiations for status” (Chuck Romig, “From My Point of View: Men’s Psychological Barriers to Adopting an Egalitarian View,” Priscilla Papers).
In conclusion, as explained in Genesis one and two, one must understand that God’s creation of men and women is for His purposeful glory. Men and women are equivalent, but their distinctions are fundamental to His divine plan, including church, family, school, procreation, etc. Colin Smothers notes, “Embedded in God’s creation of male and female, man and woman (there is no strict bifurcation between sex and gender in the biblical witness) is a simple but profound theological truth grounded in God’s creative distinctions and necessary for biblical anthropology: mankind is created to be male and female. That is, mankind is dimorphic — existing in two forms, male and female — not dipolar. Just as the land and the seas, the light and the dark, the sun and the moon have contradistinct forms that are not merely two extreme poles that exist to define a fluid middle, mankind is not a spectrum of variegated difference. Male and female He created them” (Colin Smothers, “Creation and Discrimination: Why the Male-Female Distinction Makes a Difference” eikon). Lambert reminds us that, “In the home, men are called to the role of servant leadership and are given charge over the operation of the home. Women are called to respond to this leadership with submission” (Col. 3:18-19; Eph. 5:22-30).” He continues, “[Second] men are called to a position of spiritual leadership in the church, and women are called to respond to this leadership. This distinction in church roles is located most obviously in the pastoral office of teaching” (1 Tim. 2:11-13) (Lambert, 206).
It is pertinent for you to know that I voted for, affirmed, and signed to support three statements that explain my complementarian perspective in detail: 1) our Presbyterian Church in America’s “Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Women Serving in the Ministry of the Church to the Forty-fifth General Assembly,” 2) The Danvers Statement and, 3) The Nashville Statement. As with any man-made document, these three are not perfect. However, taken together, they more than outline my complementarian perspective’s position.
Andrews PCA 