A Case for the Complementarian View

Let me preface this by saying that many books have been written on this topic, and I have brothers and sisters who hold to the opposite viewpoint. This post is merely a brief introduction and will outline my view on the subject.

At first glance, both complementarianism and egalitarianism seem valid. Both hold that men and women are equal in Christ (Gal. 3:28), that both sexes were created as image-bearers in the sight of God, and that both should be valued and honored. The difference lies in the application of the equality principle.

Egalitarianism, on the one hand, sees men and women as equal almost to the point of sameness. A wife consulting her husband may be suggested but not strongly encouraged. All Christians should be humble and submissive, according to the egalitarian view, and women specifically should not be expected to surrender their dignity and stoop to a position of subservience to men.

Complementarianism, on the other hand, recognizes the inherent worth and equality of men and women while acknowledging and valuing their essential differences. The man is given the responsibility to love and care for his wife in his authority. Meanwhile, the woman is to joyfully and willingly submit to his good leadership. Both would be created as equal, but their humanity “would find expression differently,” all in the context of God’s original design.

Part of my concern with egalitarianism is that it sees the husband-as-the-head model in marriage (Eph. 5:23) as a result of sin entering the world and not God-ordained. Yet like beauty, romance, and work, this model existed pre-Fall. When Paul directs Timothy in 1 Timothy 2 that a woman is not to assume authority over a man, it is because “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13), not because of something cultural or sinful. God easily could have made man and woman simultaneously, at the same time. But He didn’t.

In addition, egalitarianism remains largely based on Galatians 3:28, which seems to be more descriptive than prescriptive. Yes, all are equal in Christ, but the context here “makes it clear Paul is referring to salvation, not roles in the church.” Salvation is available to all people, regardless of their status, gender, or other characteristics. This is not a passage about who is in charge, and women showing appropriate submission to their husbands is not contrary to the freedom of the gospel.

I understand the arguments for egalitarianism. I concede that men and women are equal partners as they are equal in value. Both are made in God’s image and together are made one flesh. At the same time, we cannot eradicate all distinctions. Men and women, while essentially equal in value are functionally different.

Complementarianism holds that men and women are innately—not just anatomically—distinct, which has a direct impact on their role and how they each operate. It does not advocate or excuse any kind of abuse or masked domestic servanthood. It is not traditionalism or sexism, nor does it require a return to the 1950s. Complementarianism does not disqualify women from meaningful service or powerful leadership (2 Ki. 22 and Jud. 4-5). Neither are headship and hierarchy “necessarily bad or oppressive or unfair.” Rather, through this system God’s original intent comes to life.

Personally, I would argue that complementarianism is more in line with God’s intention. Egalitarianism argues that the hierarchical family system is a result of sin. But if this is so, why do we see so many examples of male headship in Scripture—in Israel, in the church, and in the home—that were dictated by God? Consider Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. God spoke to women throughout the Bible (Rebekah and Hagar are prominent examples) as well as men, but He did predominantly speak through male leaders.

Some use the example of Deborah in Judges 4-5 to justify a woman’s leadership role in the church. Yet this was a time in Israel’s history when everyone did what was “right in their own eyes” (Jud. 21:25). This period of rampant sin and rebellion against God’s ideal can hardly be used as an example of what God intends.

Complementarianism also underscores the importance of order and gender differences and is rooted in creation. God saw that the man was alone. In response, He did not create another man but a woman. Woman was created to be and to offer what man is not, and complementarians recognize this.

God created Adam first (which Paul observes in 1 Tim. 2:13), gave Adam the command to not eat from the forbidden tree prior to the creation of Eve (pointing to Adam’s responsibility to lead and instruct her, Gen. 2:16-17), and created Eve to be Adam’s “suitable helper” (Gen. 2:18). The fact that Adam named her also indicates some inherent authority God ordained, and it is interesting to note that while Eve sinned first, God seeks out Adam to ask why they were hiding (Gen. 3:8).

Some say that Jesus including women among His followers is an argument for egalitarianism. Yet while Jesus defied the culture of His time by including women in His ministry (Matt. 27:55), His closest disciples consisted only of men.

Others argue that “different” necessarily entails inequality, but this is not so. Perhaps the Trinity can help us understand this equal-but-different idea. All three Persons of God are equal, yet “God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:3, see 15:28). Each is equal, as in marriage, but each operates differently, and within an authority structure.

A few years ago, I came across Christians for Biblical Equality, or CBE. According to their mission statement, CBE exists “to promote biblical justice and community by educating Christians that the Bible calls women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world. CBE’s mission is to eliminate the power imbalance between men and women resulting from theological patriarchy.”

In service and leadership? In the home and in the church? To eliminate the power imbalance resulting from the “theological patriarchy”? This doesn’t seem quite biblical. On the contrary, it sounds a bit like we’ve borrowed some feminist jargon and used it to villainize what God has outlined in His Word.

It is worth noting that while women may not assume authority over men in the church, that doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t speak, or have any influence at all. First Timothy 2:12 instructs women to remain “quiet” or “silent.” Yet the principle here, rather than silence, is submission. It is learning not in utter silence but in gentleness, without contention or strife.

The message of 1 Timothy 2:12 is not that a woman cannot teach at all; that idea is inconsistent with other passages (Tit. 2:3). Rather, a woman is to not exercise authority over (i.e. teach) a man. Any teaching that does happen must be in submission to the authorities God has provided, such as the elders of her church. Again, this is not because they are more equal, more spiritual, or more valuable but because they have been appointed by God (Rom. 13).

I’m not against women in leadership, but that leadership, because of the Bible, will have stricter boundaries. Women are called to be leaders in their homes—“her children arise and call her blessed” (Prov. 31:28)—and teach other women.

It is important to recognize that women can have a great impact on others inside and outside the church, such as by teaching children to love and pursue what is right. Yet there is a distinction in the extent to which the Bible permits male and female authority.

As Christians, we must be wary about demonizing authority structures. Parent/child, supervisor/employee, and governor/governed relationships are similarly hierarchical, but that doesn’t mean the person “in charge” is more important or more valuable than the other.

Some criticize complementarianism because they see it as imposing unnecessary and unjust restrictions on women. However, complementarianism makes demands of men as well, who are to protect and love their wives. Even husbands are not without a head; the head of the woman is man, and the head of every man is Christ (1 Cor. 11:3). As Doug Wilson remarks, just as a woman is called to submit, so a man is called to submit, not to his wife, but to those above him, to the church, and to God. In this way he models godly submission for his wife. And his daughters.

Complementarianism is not a devaluing of women but an acknowledgement of God’s good, perfect, and pleasing will. Yes, complementarianism has its pitfalls. It can lead to stereotyping and unbiblical hierarchicalism. It can even be used as an excuse by some to abuse their authority and disrespect women.

Even so, just because something is abused doesn’t make it wrong. Living out the complementarian model as it was intended beautifully reflects God’s pre-Fall intention for one-flesh, male-female relationships. Hierarchy is not sinful, and in this area as in others, we must be careful to not let popular thought pollute or cast a shadow on what God has decreed is right.

Mao Zedong, the communist dictator of China, once noted how “women hold up half the sky,” meaning that they’re a valuable, indispensable part of the labor force. From the communist perspective, women can’t not work. Their labor is needed to keep things going. They hold up half the sky.

I would agree, but they hold up a different sky.