In light of the recent events that have taken place within the Southern Baptist Convention, I thought it’d be a good idea to talk more deeply about biblical gender roles. Before we begin, I want to make it clear that this is not a post about the SBC specifically (particularly since I’m not affiliated with that denomination in any way), but about a broader discussion on the problems with the complementarian position.

For most of my Christian life, I was under the misconception that there were only two competing positions on gender roles: egalitarianism and complementarianism. (I was born in 1988 when the term “complementarianism” was first coined.) This assumption is common if you’ve grown up in the evangelical tradition of the American church. Within that tradition, egalitarianism is the position espoused by liberals who want women in ministerial roles in the church and who see gender “equality” as necessitating no distinction in role. Complementarianism, by comparison, seeks to combat this view by recognizing a difference between men and women in terms of roles (specifically in the family and church to the exclusion of the civil government) that complement one another. It’s a position best summed up in John Piper’s statement that men and women are “ontologically equal, functionally different.” Seems passable at first glance. So what’s the problem?

My problem with Piper’s view and the complementarian position as a whole is that I don’t believe it’s the correct biblical model. All Christians should recognize that we live in a patriarchy. Patriarchy simply means “father rule” and, since we serve a loving Father who is wholly sovereign and in supreme authority over every aspect of creation, we must assent that biblical patriarchy is the paradigm that most closely reflects reality. By contrast, western culture has become increasingly more egalitarian and even matriarchical. For example, we see this in the softening of rhetoric, particularly from the pulpit, where winsomeness typically means the pastor is expected to communicate in a way that is soft-spoken. Tone and “niceness” have become definitional in our modern understanding of “love”. And while the pastor’s role in ministry is a larger discussion for another time, I can’t help but wonder why we, in the church and society at large, seem to value feminine traits (i.e., equate femininity with virtue) and demonize masculine ones? How then do the traits we value play into our understanding of authority?

For decades, we’ve been exposed to the doofus dad trope in entertainment. Homer Simpson is a prime example, but there are countless characters embodying this demeaning of male authority: Murray Goldberg, Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor, Peter Griffin, etc. Even Papa Bear in the Berenstain Bears is often corrected by wise (and frankly, condescending) Mama. (There’s even a book about Mama Bear running for Mayor, but if it’s merely about promoting the right positions, why didn’t Papa Bear just run instead?) Is it any wonder we have an authority problem in our society when this is our view of men? It’s a tale as old as the garden itself: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you” (Genesis 3:16, NET). From the beginning women have desired to step outside of their rightful place and control their husbands.

Worse, women have seen their natural role, that of motherhood, as a lesser role, as something of little societal value. There are two important points here. First, all women should be mothers. Whether or not you have biological children of your own is beside the point. Women can fulfill this role in relation to younger women and children in the church (Titus 2:4-6), with their own children, or as they can continue that role with their grandchildren. Second, a woman’s sanctification, her growing in spiritual maturity, is contingent on this reality (1 Tim. 2:15). If a woman decides she is going to throw off this role and pursue a role of fatherhood instead, she is doing nothing less than derailing her sanctification through her engagement in disorder. And since we serve the God of All Order, any practice that deviates from order is by nature demonic.

“Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”
‭‭Titus‬ ‭2‬:‭3‬-‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬ (Emphasis Added)

But that’s just in the family and the church, right? Why should the ordering of the sexes apply to civil government? Since the roles are untethered from design, it’s easy to see how the complementarian squares that circle. If God has no principle and no design behind the hierarchy and order in the home and church, then we are free to create our own structures elsewhere. The strangeness of this view is peculiarly modern and western. Throughout the course of human history, people took for granted that men should be in positions of leadership in all facets of life. The world was patriarchal. So what changed? Did we all of sudden stumble upon a more wise and biblical model for government within recent history ? Or do we recognize that we have been deeply corrupted by our time and culture, that we have been infected by the cult of feminism? Consider Isaiah 3:12 which sees women in authority as a judgment on the people.

But what about Deborah, you say. What about Jezebel? What about Athaliah? We need to be cautious about using biblical figures as role models. Is the point of Deborah’s story in Judges that any gender can be in a position of leadership over the people? I’d encourage you to read Judges 4 again (particularly v. 9), noticing how men are abdicating their roles. We have to make a distinction between which passages of Scripture are descriptive versus prescriptive. And since we have Isaiah telling us that women in rule is a sign of judgement, I’m not sure how we are to conclude Deborah’s situation was a good we should model unless we’re comfortable with agreeing to a contradiction in biblical principle, which I’m certainly not. As a caveat, this complementarian argument is rather a strange one given that Deborah’s role is often used by egalitarians as a reason for women in pastoral ministry since Deborah functioned in the context of the covenant community. Overall, we should definitely not be propping up the Judges as exemplars of leadership. Gideon sought omens. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. Samson slept with unbelievers. So it’s okay for us to do those things as well? “In those days there was no king and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

The complementarian position is a syncretizing of the Bible and culture. It is not founded on biblical ideas of gender. In fact, many of the assumptions underlying complementarianism are no different than those in the transgender movement. I know that’s a tall claim, but hear me out. Both transgenderism and complementarianism are predicated on gnostic ideas. In transgender ideology, a person can internally feel he or she is a different gender than what is biologically apparent. Of course the complementarian will counter the transgender claim by pointing to the reality of God’s biological design of the sexes. The problem is that that same complementarian will argue for gender roles as if they are arbitrary assignations and not tied explicitly to the design of the whole person: mind, body, and soul. “Ontologically equal, functionally different.” Sure, Sally can’t bench 350 so maybe she’ll move over and let her husband lift that heavy piece of furniture, but if it’s not contingent on physicality, she can do anything he can–and probably better.

Since we’re speaking of the body, let me flesh it out further. The complementarian will say that women can’t preach not because she can’t do the job, but because God told her she can’t. The problem is that in 1 Timothy 2, Paul roots his argument in creation itself. Why does he not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man? Because Adam was formed first and then Eve; Adam was not deceived, but she was. Did you catch that? Eve was deceived. Had Adam not been abdicating, the fall would not have happened. He was with her when it happened (Gen. 3:6). Not only did he allow it, but he then participated in the sin. Adam should have been protecting her from the deception. He didn’t.

A woman is not a man. She is not physically a man, nor is she mentally a man, nor spiritually one. God has designed her wholly and wonderfully different. He has created her with the affectional capacity for nurturing relationships in a way he hasn’t for the man. This is a beautiful gift for women in the proper context. It allows us to empathize with others. It allows us to nurture children, biologically or spiritually. It allows us to fulfill the role God made us for–motherhood. These characteristics of motherhood, however, are not ideal in other circumstances. Being highly relational allows for potentially more susceptibility to emotional manipulation in the wrong contexts.

On the flip side, the role of fatherhood is often one of combat, whether in the home, church, or state. It is a role of providing and protecting. We tend to use this language as it relates to fathers at home, but neglect its use in other contexts. In the church, the shepherd is to protect the sheep from wolves. Warfare. In a civil context, we understand that government “bears the sword” in using force to deter evil and promote good (Romans 13). Warfare. So, why are we women entering these roles? Do we desire destruction? Or do we simply think our own role worthless? Do we scoff at God’s design and seek counterfeit models of gender? Every day a woman should choose to cultivate, in every aspect of her life, the role to which God has made her, knowing that it will bear much fruit. To do otherwise is to spit on the goodness of God’s plan.

One day my daughters may read this. As they grow in physical and spiritual maturity, I hope they nurture a love for nurture. May they recognize the immense beauty of their whole being, the great gift of being a woman, and seek not to pursue the things of men. I pray they delight in the glory of the design to which God made them. And may, one day, their husbands and children rise up and call them blessed.

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7, NIV)

Until next time, salutations & selah.