The so-called ‘complementarian position’ explained

In the face of the growing impact of ‘women’s lib’ on society, the church and evangelicals in particular, in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, one of the most creative, conservative Reformed theologians of the twentieth century, George Knight, stepped forward hoping to put a stop to this with evangelicals. In his highly influential 1977 book, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women,[1] he claimed to be simply setting out the ‘traditional’ or ‘hierarchical’ understanding of the relationship of the sexes. In truth, what he argued was largely novel, a fact I will establish below. It was not until 1989, that the term ‘complementarian’ was coined by those insisting that the Bible clearly taught ‘male headship’; men should lead in the home and the church. The problem is that this self-chosen name does not distinguish some evangelicals from other evangelicals in any meaningful way. All Christians should believe God made the two sexes to complement each other, but this nice-sounding name won the day. 

Complementarians build their case mainly by appeal to two texts that they insist sum up what the Bible teaches on the man-woman relationship and is binding on all Christians, at all times and in all cultures because what these passages teach is predicated on a supposed ordering of the sexes given in creation, before the Fall. These are the two texts:

1. 1 Timothy 2:11-12, ‘Let a woman learn in silence with full submission, I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man.’ And,

2. Ephesians 5: 23-24, ‘Wives be subject to your husbands ... for the husband is the head of the wife.’

Over the centuries, these two texts were often quoted by theologians to support the cultural norm that men should lead. In the 1960’s and early 70’s, this cultural norm began to be challenged by ‘second wave’ feminists, whose ideas were accepted by many Christians. It seemed common sense and just that men and women should be treated alike in the world and the church. In this new cultural context, the two texts mentioned above, were widely taken to reflect nothing more than the cultural norms of Paul’s day. They are not prescriptive in another age with very different cultural norms. I certainly believed this until the mid-1970’s. I saw the exhortations to women to be subordinate in exactly the same way as the parallel exhortations to slaves to obey their masters and be subordinate (Eph 5:6:5-9, Col 3:22-24, 1 Peter 2:18-25); a reflection of the cultural norms of Paul’s time, not applicable in our culture that condemns slavery.

George Knight, in his 1977 book completely excluded this way of understanding the comments about the subordination of women in the Bible. He argued that what 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and Ephesians 5:22-23 taught is predicated on ‘the creation order’ - man was created ‘first’, woman ‘second,’ and so this teaching is binding on all Christians at all times and in all cultures. He then added a number of other arguments to support his developed theology of the sexes: Jesus in appointing twelve men as his apostles thereby making male leadership an abiding principle for all time;  Paul’s affirmations of women in ministry of one sort or another speak only of women in ‘ministry’ under male leadership; the divine three persons are hierarchically ordered in heaven and this is prescriptive for the male-female relationship on earth, and God has given fixed ‘roles’ to men and women - men have the leading ‘role’, women the obeying ‘role.’ Not one of these arguments is compelling. They cannot stand critical scrutiny. [2] 

What I have outlined as the complementarian position can be found in dozens of theological books and is widely articulated in evangelical and Reformed churches and seminaries, but to get any complementarian to openly agree to what I have just said is almost impossible. Complementarians would make good politicians. They are masters of obfuscating language and not answering the questions you ask. What is more they are usually very inconsistent in applying their theology. Most have profoundly equal marriages, and in mixed gender groups they often allow women to teach.  The more inconsistent ones call themselves, ‘soft complementarians.’

Note carefully; the most important thing Knight introduced in his creative and novel case in support of ‘male headship’ was that he grounded the subordination of women in a supposed creation ordering of the sexes which made it universally binding for all time in all cultures.[3] Women should not lead in the home or the church and not teach/preach anywhere at any time because this is excluded by the Bible and thus is a theological principle. Before 1970. the exclusion of women from leadership and teaching in mixed groups on a supposed theological principle revealed in Scripture was unknown.

The complementarian position critically evaluated

Over forty years, I have written in opposition to the ‘complementarian position’ that dominates Sydney Anglicanism and is highly influential in many Christian organizations, not because I am a dangerous liberal who denies the authority of Scripture or, because I ‘hate’ the Sydney Anglican Diocese or those of complementarian conviction, as some have claimed. The opposite is the truth. You totally dismiss and denounce your enemies; you seek to enter into dialogue with your friends, hoping they will mend their ways. I oppose this post 1977 novel theology because I think it denies the very positive view of women and their abilities that is basic to the Bible’s teaching on men and women and because it is one big put down of women, bound to critically wound the church in the long run. In reply to my complementarian friends, I argue:[4]

1.      There is something fundamentally wrong with how you understand Ephesians 5:22-23 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. If these texts subordinate wives to husbands and forbid all women from teaching or exercising authority over a man, making this the unchanging and unchangeable creation ideal, and thus binding in every culture for all time, then these two texts directly contradict what is primary in Scripture and the overall perspective of Scripture. In Genesis chapter one, put first in our Bibles because what it teaches is of first importance, we are told God created man and woman at the same time; made them both in his image and likeness (same status and dignity) and appointed them, standing side by side with heads erect, to rule over all creation (same ‘role’), not one over the other (Gen 1:27-28). Then in chapter 2 we are explicitly told that the subjection of women, is a consequence of the fall – it is something sinful (Gen 3:16). Not the creation ideal.

What this means is that what the Bible actually says in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 directly contradicts your claim that the subordination of women is grounded in creation before the Fall.

2.     You say nothing at all about the teaching and example of Jesus in regard to women. The only thing you note from the Gospels is that Jesus chose twelve men to be his apostles. This is an historical fact; what it infers Jesus does not tell us. It probably infers nothing more than leadership in the culture of that time was usually given by men What needs to be stressed is that Jesus had the highest view of women possible and said not one word on their subordination, and much to the contrary. He limited their ministries in no way. After his resurrection he sent women to tell the male apostle hiding in fear the good news, ‘Jesus is risen’ (Matt 28:1-10, Mk 16:1-8, Lk 24:1-2, Jn 20:1-18).  Thomas Aquinas called these women ‘apostles to the apostles.’[5] In Romans 16:7, Paul warmly commends a woman apostle, who like Paul is a post resurrection apostle.

What this means our Lord and master, Jesus Christ, is not the final word for your complementarians on the man-woman relationship.

3.     Your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and Ephesians 5:22-23, claiming that they give permanently binding teaching cannot be right. If it is right then it stands in contradiction of what Paul usually teaches. The Apostle teaches elsewhere that all ministry is predicated on Spirit-gifting and the Spirit is given to men and women alike. He thus speaks often of women in leadership, doing much the same as men, and once of a woman apostle (Rom. 16:7) – and apostles certainly taught.

There is a better and more convincing interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and Ephesians 5:22-23 than the one you give. What Paul says in Ephesians 5:23-24 he subverts, some even say contradicts, in what he says immediately before - You husbands and wives, ‘be subordinate to one another’, and by what he says immediately after, You ‘husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up [in death] for her.’ When we turn to 1 Timothy 2:8-15 we find again that your interpretation of this text is unconvincing. Paul is writing to a church besieged by false teachers who have led some women astray (1 Tim 4:3, 5:13, 5:15). It is in this specific historical situation that we are to understand 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Here Paul forbids women who have been ‘deceived’ like Eve from ‘usurping authority’ over the male church leaders. On this interpretation, 1 Timothy 2:8-15, gives exceptional teaching addressing a specific first century problem, not normative teaching binding on all Christians in every age and culture.

What this means is that your complementarian theology, predicated mainly on your interpretation of two texts, is an interpretation that contradicts what the weightiest parts of Scripture teach.

4.     The additional arguments about woman being created ‘second’; the Trinity being hierarchically ordered, and God giving different ‘roles’ to men and women are all special pleading. They do not stand scrutiny.[6]

Thankfully, complementarian teaching is now declining in support because: i. The reading of the Bible I have just outlined is gaining more and more supporters; ii. No rational reply can be made to what I have just said above. iii. Because the connexion between headship teaching and the abuse of women is now widely acknowledged,[7] and, iv. Because many complementarian theologians have abandoned the Trinity argument, which was so important to their case for the hierarchical ordering of the sexes, because they have conceded that it reintroduces the Arian heresy in different wording.[8]

27.7.21

---

Rev Dr Kevin Giles (Th.D.) is a graduate of Moore Theological College, Sydney and has completed post graduate study in England and Germany. He was in parish ministry for forty years in various ways; associate minister, church Planter, university chaplain, rector of a large multi-staff parish, and in "rebirthing' an inner city church. He has published widely on what the Bible says on the church, ministry, women and the Trinity. He writes with a passion to see the renewal of the church.

[1] Grand Rapids: Baker.

[2] I deconstruct them one by one in my, What the Bible Actually Teaches on Women.

[3] I am not suggesting that Knight invented the idea of a creation ordering of the sexes but he certainly introduced this problematic idea into evangelical debate about the male-female relationship, an idea without any biblical support. On creation orders, see Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, Grand Rapids, 2002, 161-62, 170-79

[4] For a full exposition of this evangelical egalitarian theology, predicated on the Bible, and the deconstruction of the post 1970 ‘complementarian’ position, see Giles, What the Bible Actually Teaches on Women.

[5] Giles, What the Bible actually Teaches on Women, 83.

[6] I deconstruct each of these arguments in my book, What the Bible Actually Teaches About Women.

[7] See my, The Headship of Men and the Abuse of women. Are They Related in Any Way? Oregon, Cascade, 2020.

[8] See my, The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity, Oregon, Cascade, 2017.