An Overview of the Complementarian/Egalitarian Debate

The decades-long gender debate within evangelicalism shows few signs of abating and the stakes remain high. For complementarians the plain meaning of Scripture in prohibiting women from certain leadership roles in the church/home is clear. To cross this line is to call the very authority of the Bible into question. Likewise, much is at stake for egalitarians who are convinced that the gospel dismantles social hierarchies and calls women and men to serve (without gender restrictions) in church leadership and practise mutual submission in marriage. While the debate seems entrenched there are reasons to be optimistic. Proponents on both sides share the same commitment to biblical authority and are seeking to understand and apply Scripture faithfully. Moreover, scholarship continues to advance our understanding of the pertinent texts. What follows is an attempt to avoid the tribal echo chambers and outline the respective positions in a way that proponents from either side would recognise as their own. I conclude with a brief account of what I believe are the critical issues.

Complementarianism

Complementarian accounts of gender argue for complementarity between men and women. In the church this is expressed through suitably gifted and appointed men assuming responsibility for the authoritative teaching and pastoral oversight of the congregation. Within marriage, men are called to loving and sacrificial leadership of their household and women to voluntary submission to their husbands. In both cases, these differences are considered matters of role/function and exist alongside a commitment to the equal value of both men and women as divine image-bearers. A theological account of complementarianism may be outlined in the following terms:

1. A concern that feminism, and the social conditions which promote it, while offering some good, are ultimately opposed to the divinely ordained creation order of relations between men and women. Alongside this concern is a suspicion that egalitarian hermeneutics are novel and influenced by this contemporary social movement.
2. The plain meaning of 1 Tim 2:8–15 is that women are not to teach or have authority (or perhaps teach authoritatively) over men in the church (2:12). This is based on the created order described in vv.13–14 and is framed in terms of what Paul expects to happen in every place (2:8). This pattern of male leadership in the church is reinforced within the Pastoral Epistles (e.g. 1 Tim 3:1–13).
3. First Timothy 2:8–15 provides an interpretive lens by which Genesis 2–3 is understood. Not only is Adam created first and Eve as “a helper suitable for him” (Gen 2:18, NIV), there are several subtle indications in Genesis 2–3 that men are designed to have an authoritative role of leadership and responsibility over women. The consequence of the fall distorts this otherwise good design of creation: “Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will dominate you” (3:16, NIV).
4. First Corinthians 11:2–16 identifies the man (or husband depending on one’s translation) as the head (kephalē) of the woman (or wife) (11:3) which is a metaphor for authority.[1] The head covering instructions which follow (11:4–16), although difficult to interpret, are a cultural application of this headship principle. The expectation that women are involved in public prophesying and praying is not considered to contradict the prohibition of teaching (didaskō) in 1 Tim 2:8–15. The definition of the activities of teaching, prophesying (prophēteuō), and exhorting (parakeleō) (in, for example, Rom 12:6–8) remain a matter of contention and there is debate among contemporary practitioners as to how these New Testament activities correspond to contemporary speech practices.
5. First Corinthians 14:33b–35 describes a situation in which prophecy is being evaluated (14:29). In this context women ought not undermine the order of gendered relations and so should remain silent, opting out of the weighing of prophecy in the ecclesial setting.
6. There are several marriage texts which describe a structure of gendered authority including the husband as head (kephalē) (Eph 5:23) and the expectation that wives submit (Eph 5:22; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1). The Ephesians household code reinforces this transcultural differentiation of roles by grounding them in a Christ–church typology (Eph 5:23–24, 32) and appealing to the “one flesh” Genesis ideal (Eph 5:31; Gen 2:24). Men are given no authority to dominate but only to lead sacrificially and lovingly (Eph 5:25–29), and women, as equal partners of creation and salvation, are called to a voluntary and intelligent posture of submission and respect (5:22–24). Male headship extends over the entire household, including any children (Eph 6:1–4). While there is close correspondence between family and the church as the household of God (1 Tim 3:1–5), there is limited theological reflection about the wider social implications of complementarianism.

Further reading:

1. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The Danvers Statement: www.cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement/
2. Grudem, Wayne & John Piper, editors. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021.
3. Köstenberger, Andreas J. & Thomas R. Shreiner, editors. Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15. Third edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
4. Smith, Claire. God’s Good Design: What the Bible Really Says About Men and Women. Second edition. Sydney: Matthias Media, 2019.

Egalitarianism

Egalitarian or mutualist accounts of gender also use the language of complementarity but reject the paradigm of male authority and female submission as biblically normative. Rather, the Holy Spirit comes upon men and women alike and gifts are distributed to the church without reference to gender. Therefore, the few isolated texts that appear to restrict the ministry of women (e.g. 1 Cor 14:33–36; 1 Tim 2:8–15) ought not be interpreted simplistically and in isolation from, nor in contradiction to, the rest of Scripture. Moreover, the Christian home of the New Testament is described as one in which husband and wife mutually submit to one another and who together are owed equal honour from any children. A theological account of egalitarianism may be outlined as follows:

1. A concern that patriarchy has been the (unjust and unbiblical) default social arrangement throughout history and that complementarian hermeneutics perpetuate this.
2. A commitment to the equality of women alongside men as created in the image of God. This is why Paul undermines social hierarchical distinction in Gal 3:28. Moreover, the New Testament describes the Holy Spirit poured out upon both females and males (Acts 2:17–18) and consistently imagines that the gifts of the Spirit are given without reference to gender (e.g. Rom 12:3–8). Therefore, the complementarian distinction between essence and role is both unnecessary and false.
3. This pattern of equality is grounded in the Genesis account of divine image bearing in which any hierarchical interpretation is not self-evident. The creation mandate for procreation and dominion over the earth is given to both men and women jointly (Gen 1:26–28). Moreover, the descriptive term helper (ezer) for that of the woman (Gen 2:20) is a Hebrew word used also of God’s helping of Israel (e.g. Deut 33:29; Ps 121:1). It therefore does not reference a relationship of subordination. The first description of gendered hierarchy appears in Gen 3:16 in which the effects of the fall are described.
4. There are examples throughout the Old Testament of female leadership such as Miriam (Num 12:1–16; Mic 6:4), Deborah (Jud 4–5), Huldah (2 Kings 22:11–14; 2 Chron 34:14–33), Esther (Esth 8), and Noadiah (Neh 6:10–13).
5. Against the grain of ancient social norms, women were given prominence by Jesus as models of faith (e.g. Luke 1:26–55; 7:36–50), were included as members of his travelling disciples (Luke 8:1–3), and were the first witnesses of the empty tomb/resurrection (Matt 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–11; John 20:1–18).
6. The New Testament letters describe women as co-workers in ministry and functioning in various levels of church leadership. Among many such references is Romans 16 which mentions Phoebe whom Paul sent as his representative and, arguably, his letter-bearer (and likely, therefore, public reader) and Junia who is (likely) described as an apostle. Priscilla is mentioned first when referenced with her husband and they together instruct Apollos (Acts 18:26). Several women also seem to share leadership of house churches (Col 4:15; Philem 1; 1 Cor 11:11; Acts 16:11–15).
7. There are several difficult interpretive issues within 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 but what is clear is that, despite the social hierarchy in which the Corinthians lived, Paul expected women to publicly prophesy and pray. Paul’s argument, therefore, may reflect a rhetorical movement from Corinthian assumptions (11:7–10) to Creation ideals of mutual interdependence (11:11–12).
8. First Corinthians 14:34b–35 likely reflects Paul’s concern that wives not publicly shame their husbands by critiquing their prophecy in the ecclesial setting. Alternatively, it could be a non-Pauline interpolation.
9. The plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:8–15 (as understood by complementarians) is overstated and several interpretive issues remain. While the creation story is referenced, its application is different from that found in 1 Cor 11:2–16, and its emphasis is upon Eve’s disobedience. Indeed, the prohibition authentein (v12) is the only example of that term we have in the New Testament. A better translation is “usurp authority” and is congruent with the presenting concern of false teachers who were disrupting the church (1 Tim 1:3–11, 19–20; 4:1–5; 6:3–10; 2 Tim 3:6). Thus, 1 Tim 2:8–15 is better understood as a cautionary tale which references a local situation that gives rise to Paul’s prohibition. Moreover, the reference to childbirth (2:15) and the possibility that the terms anēr and gynē may refer to husband and wife (and not man and woman generally) needs to be considered.
10. Marriage in the New Testament is described as a relationship of equal authority and decision-making (1 Cor 7:2–6). The household codes (Eph 5:21—6:4; Col 3:18—4:1; 1 Pet 2:18—3:7) reflect ancient social norms while also subverting aspects of them. So, in Eph 5:21, mutual submission is enjoined and the rhetorical flow of that section is completed when Paul turns headship on its “head,” concluding with the model of unity and mutuality (5:30–33). Likewise, in 1 Pet 3:1–7, the rhetorical point involves a movement away from the assumption of gendered authority in marriage and towards the ideal of spouses as co-heirs. The external social structures restricted the extent to which this gospel ideal could be practised (e.g. Roman law conferred significant authority on the oldest male of a household: the paterfamilias). However, in the internal relational dynamics of married couples, Paul expected the gospel to result in mutuality and equality. Moreover, whereas social conventions prioritised the primacy of the father in the home, Paul frames parental honour as belonging to both father and mother (Eph 6:1–4; 1 Cor 7:14–16).

Further reading:

1. CBE International. Men, Women, and Biblical Equality: www.cbeinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022DefiningBiblicalGenderEquality.pdf
2. Gupta, Nijay, K. Tell Her Story: How Women Led, Taught, and Ministered in the Early Church. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023.
3. Lee, Dorothy A. The Ministry of Women in the New Testament: Reclaiming the Biblical Vision for Church Leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
4. Pierce, Ronald W, Cynthia Long Westfall, and Chrisa L. McKirland, editors. Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural & Practical Perspectives. Third edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021.

Evaluation

Both sides of the debate find themselves seeking to resolve apparent contradictions. Complementarians tend to overlook certain texts such as 1 Cor 7:2–6 and privilege 1 Tim 2:8–15 which serves as the lens for reading Genesis 1–2 and the text with which the rest of the New Testament is harmonised. Yes, Junia may be an apostle, and Priscilla taught Apollos, but they did so alongside, or under the authority, of their husband or a male church leader. On the other hand, egalitarians tend to privilege certain theological themes such as the principle of equality in Genesis 1–2 and Gal 3:28 and the implications of Pentecost for the roles of women. These presuppositions then inform a phenomenological account of women’s roles throughout the rest of the New Testament. Texts which prohibit women from certain roles in the Pastoral Epistles are explained as a local situation requiring an emergency response to extenuating circumstances.

In my view the critical issues are:

1. What does Genesis 1–3 mean for the structure of gendered relationships? Moreover, what is the significance of the different ways in which Paul uses this Creation story in 1 Cor 11:2–16 and 1 Tim 2:8–15?
2. How does the principle of “one flesh” from Genesis 2 inform Paul’s theology of marriage in 1 Cor 6:12—7:40 and Eph 5:21—6:4. How should the marital symmetry of 1 Cor 7:2–6 be reconciled with the apparent asymmetry in Eph 5:22–24?
3. What is the theological significance of Pentecost for the ministry of women?
4. What is inherent to femaleness and maleness which gives rise to the roles that Complementarianism claims?

The feature image is used under Canva licence.

---

[1] The correspondence between the gendered head metaphor and the God–Christ relationship (1 Cor 11:3) has resulted in a contentious discussion about trinitarian hermeneutics.