We’ll begin by discussing the idea that the husband is the leader and final decision-maker in the family, and that his wife must obey him. It may surprise some to hear that the Bible never commands husbands to rule, lead, or make decisions on behalf of their wives! This is an idea that is merely read into the text based on prior assumptions (and, unfortunately, is perpetuated by a lot of popular Christian speakers and authors). The Bible clearly tells husbands to treat their wives as equals, to love them, respect them, care for them, and even to lay down their lives for them; but a command to husbands to rule over or lead their wives is conspicuously absent.
One important question never addressed by complementarianism is why women need to be led at all. Leadership of one individual over another is reasonable only if one is in need of being led and the other is qualified to lead. There is, however, no reason (biblical or otherwise) to think women are particularly in need of leadership, nor that men are naturally qualified to lead as a result of nothing but their maleness. Rather, we see a natural variation among individuals regardless of gender. If all husbands are to lead (even though some are not necessarily qualified), and if wives are no more in need of leadership than their husbands, then this arrangement is entirely arbitrary and potentially harmful. If women are not universally less mature than men, they ought to be treated as full adults capable of making decisions for themselves in the same way men are. When decisions are made for them, this is not “doing them a favor.” How can they grow to intellectual, emotional, and spiritual maturity if they are treated as children incapable of making decisions and unfit to have responsibility for themselves?
Complementarians sometimes admit that there is no gender-determined difference in qualification, but declare that the distinction is merely for the sake of order. They fear that without a clear chain of command a marriage will be directionless, inefficient, or even chaotic. They say things like “a ship can only have one captain” and “someone has to make the final decision.” In fact, sometimes they even assume that if the husband is not the leader, he must be passive and timid, and it must be the wife who is leading! But this does not at all reflect a true egalitarian marriage, and it shows that the complementarian position does not seem able to conceive of a relationship of true equals.
In reality, however, egalitarian marriages thrive without a chain of command. The answer to the complementarian’s concerns is patently obvious: all major decisions MUST be made together. The couple must work together and compare viewpoints until both are in agreement. Learning to compromise and work with others is simply part of being an adult, and the complementarian marriage cannot benefit from the attempt to bypass such an important part of a relationship. For the sake of artificially avoiding all conflict, they have removed one of the greatest opportunities for a married couple to grow in character and maturity, as well as to become closer to each other. The result may be a conflict-free home, but can there be real closeness?
To designate the husband as the final decision-maker simply because he is male is completely arbitrary. At least complementarians insist that a wise husband will consider his wife’s input, but he is not required to and may be less likely to do so if he is so convinced that she is somehow unfit to make such decisions as a result of her female nature. Therefore, it is probable that this arrangement will result in poor decisions being made at times because the full input of both spouses is not being utilized.
There is always the possibility that some major decision will come up that must be made immediately and on which the husband and wife disagree. What to do in this case? I would argue that this is a rare situation, but perhaps every couple ought to discuss such a scenario ahead of time and decide together what should be done. Maybe they consult a trusted third person with whom they are both comfortable. Or perhaps whichever spouse has more knowledge regarding the particular issue or will be more affected by the decision would have preference. Either way, choosing a final decision-maker arbitrarily is the worst possible solution. It would be no different from making such a choice based on hair color or taking turns depending on the day of the week. Ultimately, when each spouse truly has the other’s best interest in mind, it will be possible to work together effectively without an arbitrary hierarchy.
Another concern of complementarianism is that an egalitarian marriage contradicts the biblical commands regarding submission. But this is not true. An egalitarian marriage is not devoid of submission; in fact, it has MORE submission than a complementarian marriage, for the submission is mutual; each spouse submits to the other! Submission is not the same as obedience. To submit is to give up having your own way for the sake of others, to consider others more important than yourself and to give preference to others, all of which are instructions given to all believers (both male and female) throughout the New Testament. A marriage of mutual submission simply is one in which neither spouse demands the right to have their own way but is willing to make sacrifices for the good of the other (contrasted with the complementarian model, under which only wives are to allow their husbands have their way). Submitting to others is an important element of Christ-likeness; why would a husband be exempt from this requirement in his relationship with his wife?
Besides, how can a husband grow and be teachable without a submissive spirit? It’s hard to think of a better facilitator of growth than a husband and wife, who know each other better than anyone else, motivating and encouraging each other to greater maturity and character. Under the complementarian model, husbands are often responsible for “instructing” and managing the growth of their wives, but for wives to do the same is considered a breach of “headship.” The husband is therefore deprived of one major benefit his wife may provide.
The egalitarian marriage model leads naturally to mutual respect, affection, appreciation, and commitment, aspects of a relationship that may be much more difficult if one partner holds permanent and universal authority over the other. A complementarian relationship, on the other hand, has all the elements of authoritarianism: absolute obedience (except commands to sin), comprehensive authority over the entire life of another individual, and no accountability to the person being ruled over. It is simply impossible for a husband in such a situation to treat his wife as his equal, no matter how kind he is. Don’t get me wrong: certainly complementarians do instruct husbands to treat their wives kindly and respectfully. But there is a far greater risk of abuse in an arrangement in which the husband is assumed to have divinely sanctioned authority on the basis of his gender alone, and is not accountable to his wife.
Another complementarian idea is that the husband is the wife’s “spiritual covering,” and as “priest of the home” is ultimately responsible for her spiritual well-being (though nothing like this is ever stated in the Bible). The details vary, but the basic idea is that the husband has been given the spiritual responsibility to interpret and teach her God’s word and will, and that he is in some sense a mediator between her and God. This is a seriously problematic idea. All believers have equal access to God under the new covenant and so are responsible for themselves before God. Any other arrangement would imply that men and women are not on the same spiritual level, that men are somehow better able to represent God to their families and churches, and are better equipped to communicate with God. Beyond that, what does this say about the sufficiency of Jesus’ role as mediator between humanity and God? Apparently Jesus isn’t enough, or else why would it be necessary for husbands to be “supplementary” mediators? This arrangement is more like the old covenant, under which some were chosen to be priests based on external physical characteristics, rather than the new covenant, under which the priesthood of all believers was established.
This arrangement runs the risk of causing the spiritual stunting of women, leaving them more easily deceived and manipulated by false teaching since they must always depend on men for instruction and discernment. It could also be spiritually harmful to men by creating the perfect breeding ground for arrogance, an unteachable spirit (if being male means you have a unique ability to understand God’s will and speak for Him, how can you ever be wrong?), and a sense of superiority over women, not to mention the inevitable burnout as they try to fill a role that is meant to be filled only by Jesus Himself (Heb. 9:11-15).
Therefore, the idea that the supposed roles of men and women in marriage are “different but equal” is disingenuous and misleading. If men are given the right to have control over their own lives as well as the lives of women, while women must hand over the right to control their lives to men, this is the definition of inequality.
It should be noted that a couple may, of course, choose whatever structure they like for their marriage. If they want a hierarchical structure, it is no one else’s business. However, I would argue that a marriage in which both spouses truly respect each other as equals, work together as a team to make all decisions, and never pull rank on each other, is far more natural and has a greater chance of being healthy and fulfilling; not to mention the fact that only in an egalitarian marriage are both spouses required to treat each other in a truly Christ-like way. Further, as I will argue in part 4, I believe there is no biblical command for a hierarchical structure in marriage, and therefore, those who reject it cannot be accused of disobeying God.
Let us now turn to the role of women in the church. Generally speaking, the complementarian view is that while women do play an important role in the church, leadership roles are to be reserved for men. Additionally, while men may teach other men, women may only teach other women and children. There are varying opinions on how far these restrictions go; some believe women cannot hold any leadership position and should not even speak in church; others believe only the role of senior pastor must be exclusive to men, but that a woman may teach the entire congregation as long as she is “under the authority of a man.” Nevertheless, they all have in common the idea that there are some restrictions on women regarding ministry positions, while men have no such restrictions.
Some believe these restrictions exist not because of any difference in ability or qualification between the genders, but merely to maintain order in the church, while others believe there are more specific reasons. One such reason is that women supposedly are more easily deceived than men (though this is never stated in the Bible!), and so should not be allowed to teach the entire congregation. One must wonder, however, if this were true, what kind of sense it would make for a woman to teach other women and children, who would themselves be most vulnerable to false teaching, and to avoid teaching the men who supposedly would be most likely to detect falsehoods?
Another justification given for the exclusion of women from leadership roles is that women were not allowed to be priests under the old covenant, so they should not be allowed to be pastors under the new. But it was not only women who were excluded from the priesthood in the old covenant; most men were as well! Priests had to be male, descendants of Aaron, and without any physical defects. It is important to understand why God would institute such qualifications. As humans, we tend to look at and consider what is external, while God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). The point, then, was to create certain standards for the priesthood based on what humans value in order to teach us about being holy and set apart in a way we could understand. However, under the new covenant, the lesson had been learned and the priesthood of all believers was established. Hence, there is no longer any reason to hold onto the old qualifications regarding race, physical appearance, or gender; we must now look at the heart as God does.
Complementarians also point to the fact that the 12 disciples were all male as evidence that the leaders of the church must be male. But, similar to the point made above, Jesus’ disciples were also Jewish. We don’t require all pastors to be Jewish, so why require them to be male? Of course, the reason for the 12 disciples being male is perfectly clear:Jesus was operating within a patriarchal society in which it would have been inappropriate and counter-productive for any of his close followers to be women. But this fact cannot serve as justification for assuming a universal, permanent standard regarding the role of women in the church. Jesus was merely recognizing and operating within the culture of the time.
I will say more on the topic of women serving as leaders and teachers in the church when I address the verses used to exclude them from such positions. For now, however, imagine how much healthier a church could be if it were to allow all its members to serve in whatever capacity God called them to serve. There certainly is no benefit from refusing to hear from half of the members of a church simply because they are women. A church that does not discriminate in this way will have more time and energy to focus on important matters of ministry and outreach, rather than busying themselves trying to make sure women are not “usurping” the roles supposedly ordained by God for men alone. We would never dream of assigning or restricting such roles based on race or social status, so why insist on it based on gender?
Thus far, I believe there is a strong case for biblical egalitarianism. But what about those verses we all undoubtedly have in mind that have been conspicuously absent from anything I’ve yet written? Doesn’t the Bible tell wives to submit to their husbands? Aren’t women told to be silent in the churches, and never to teach or have authority over a man? It would be impossible to present a complete argument for the egalitarian position without discussing such verses. I will turn to these in parts 3 and 4.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
