Are There Different Roles for Men and Women in the Family and the Church?

       I’m going to attempt to cover a complex (and often controversial) topic within a series of only four blog posts. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and almost certainly there will be some disagreement with what I’m going to say. I only ask that everyone consider the issue with an open mind and be willing to follow the biblical evidence over their own traditions, preferences, and presuppositions. I hope to not offend anyone, but I have also tried to avoid watering down what I believe to be true. And I welcome disagreement as long as good counterpoints are provided. 

       I’ll begin with a brief overview of the two opposing viewpoints on this topic: complementarianism and egalitarianism. Simply put, complementarianism is the belief that God created each gender with different roles, so that they complement each other and work together harmoniously. Egalitarianism does not deny general differences between genders, but rejects the idea that there are specific roles reserved for one gender from which the other is excluded. 

       There will, of course, be variations within each of these views based on the individual who holds them, but generally speaking complementarians hold some combination or version of the following positions: 

Roles within the Home

• The husband is the leader and the final decision-maker in the home.
• A woman’s primary purpose is to serve her husband, bear children, and be a homemaker.
• Husbands are ultimately responsible for the spiritual health of their families.
• Wives are to submit to and obey their husbands.
• The husband is the spiritual leader of his wife.

Roles within the Church

• Pastors and Elders should only be men. 
• Women may only teach other women and children, never men.
• Women must never have spiritual authority over men.

Modern complementarians stress the fact that they believe men and women are equal in being, or essence (in other words, they have equal value in the eyes of God), but are different merely in function or position. 

       By contrast, the egalitarian position rejects the distinctions made above. An egalitarian believes men and women have full equality in both being and function, that leadership and teaching roles (both in the church and the home) are not reserved for men, and that husbands are not in authority over wives, but that husbands and wives should submit to each other mutually. 

       The complementarian position certainly has been dominant throughout church history, but we must be careful not to assume a particular view is correct simply because we’ve always believed it to be so. The subordination of women vastly predates Christianity and has been present in nearly every culture in recorded history, so we need to consider the possibility that it may be based on worldly customs rather than God’s command. Besides, there have been instances of wrong belief in the church at times throughout history (such as the support of slavery by Christians in the south). Some Christians in the early church had a low view of women (as was normal in the culture of the time), and complementarianism was originally based on the belief that women were inferior to men. It is only a relatively recent anomaly that complementarians have modified their position to include (at least nominally) a belief in the equality of being or value between men and women. 

       In subsequent posts I will address what the Bible actually says about gender roles, but first I would like to consider whether this idea that women can be equal in being and value but unequal in function and role is even a coherent one. Complementarians prefer to use words such as “different” or “complementary” rather than “unequal” and “hierarchical,” but these are euphemisms. A CEO and a janitor are both valuable to a company, but no one would claim they are equal. The fact that complementarians insist so adamantly that women are equal in value to men betrays the fact that they do understand that the proposed roles for each are not, in fact, equal. 

       To defend their position, complementarians point out that our world is full of superior and inferior functions and ranks. They often accuse egalitarians of having a problem with authority or unequal positions generally, but this is a mischaracterization. Functional subordination is perfectly legitimate in many situations, such as parents having authority over their children, an employer having authority over an employee, or the CEO of a company having a higher and more important position than a secretary. But these are not accurate analogies: in these cases, the subordination is only temporary (children grow up eventually), is limited to a particular task or setting (a boss’s authority is limited to the scope of the job and the time during which the employee is at work), and can change (anyone, in theory, can earn their way to a higher position). 

       By contrast, under complementarianism, the subordination of women is permanent, covers all areas of her life (particularly in the case of husbands’ authority), and cannot ever be changed based on attainment of greater qualification. Egalitarians do not object to superior and inferior positions generally, but to those positions being assigned based not on merit or qualification but on arbitrary factors (such as race or gender). To subordinate women simply because they’re women is to set up a sort of caste system, in which some people are simply born into a permanently lower status and forever denied the opportunity to earn higher positions, while others are born into a higher status and enjoy the benefits without having to earn them. 

       The main problem is that the reasons for the subordination of women is that it is irrevocably tied to their essential being! If femaleness alone is sufficient justification for excluding women from roles that require spiritual maturity, understanding, and giftings, this has unavoidable implications about their very nature. This is not merely “functional” subordination; it is based on who and what women are. Based on who and what they are, they are denied even the chance to earn certain positions. If women can’t help being what they are, and if inequality follows as a result of what you are, then inequality in being is implied. There is no escaping it. 

       This is the trap of the complementarian position: either women are excluded from certain roles based on their abilities and qualifications, in which case women must be inferior to men in some way; or else, it is not based on any such difference and is therefore completely arbitrary. There simply is no middle ground. To hold the complementarian position is to assert that women are, in some way, inferior to men. 

       But aren’t God’s ways are higher than our ways and always best for us? Shouldn’t we obey His commands and design even if they don’t make sense? The Bible, not our personal feelings and opinions (no matter how reasonable they may seem) is to be our ultimate authority. But for the remainder of part 1, I would like to make the case that the egalitarian position IS the true biblical position. When considered as a whole, the Bible clearly affirms the complete equality of men and women (in being as well as function):

• Men and women bear God’s image equally, and they are commanded together to take dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:27-28). 
• Paul said husbands and wives are equal heirs of God’s gift of life (1 Peter 3:7). 
• All believers, regardless of gender, are adopted “sons” (or heirs) of God (Romans 8:15-17). 
• Peter and Paul both teach that God does not show favoritism (Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:11). 
• Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit and receive gifts without respect to age, gender, or social status (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18).
• The New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers; in other words, that each individual has direct access to God through Jesus and no longer must rely on other human beings as mediators (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10). 
• The New Testament frequently teaches all believers (not just women) to be humble, to honor one another, and to be submissive to one another (Matt. 23:8-12; Rom. 12:10; Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:3). 
• Jesus taught all His followers (not just women) never to strive for greater status or authority over each other, but rather to become servants and consider others more important than themselves (Matt. 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-27; Phil. 2:3). 
• Jesus taught women theology, even though this was against Jewish custom at the time. (Luke 10:38-42; John 4:7-27). 
• Finally, Jesus chose women to be the first to proclaim His resurrection, even though the testimony of women held little weight in that time and culture (Matthew 28:8-10; Luke 24:9; John 20:17-18). 

       Beyond this, Galatians 3:26-28 is perhaps the most famous egalitarian verse: 

       “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

       Paul chose his words in this verse very carefully. The threefold affirmation corresponds to the traditional prayer each Jewish man was taught to pray, in which he would thank God for not making him a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. This was because free, Jewish males had certain religious privileges under the old covenant that were denied to all others. Paul’s point is that because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, we are now under the new covenant and all such distinctions have been made irrelevant. None of us would continue to insist on different spiritual or organizational status or privileges based on social status or race, so why do some continue to insist on it based on gender? Some complementarians believe these verses merely mean that salvation is available to everyone, and has nothing to do with role or function. But what would it mean to be “equally saved?” There are no varying degrees of salvation. Either we have received God’s free gift, or we have not. There is no need for Paul to reassure Christians of such a thing. Therefore, the fact that this verse refers to functions, roles, and status now being available to everyone cannot be avoided. 

       In light of all this, I believe anyone who wishes to maintain the complementarian view has the extraordinary task of finding support for this view that somehow outweighs the vast amount of support for gender equality found throughout the Bible. 

       But wait...aren’t there specific verses that command certain roles for men and women? If this is what God commands, who are we to question it? Don’t worry, I will come to those verses eventually. But first, in my next post, I’ll make a more specific case for equal roles for women in the family and in the church. 

       (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.)