THE CASE FOR COMPLEMENTARIANISM
PRELUDE
In roughly two weeks, Catherine Rybicki and I will have a public dialogue on the complementarianism vs. egalitarianism controversy. It will be livestreamed on the Advent Christian Voices Facebook page as a special episode of Bible & Banter before the end of July. Below is my presentation of the positive Biblical case for complementarianism, specifically in regards to positions of spiritual authority in the Church. All quoted passages are from the ESV. You may notice something about it- it’s short. Allow me to present my case, and then at the end to explain my brevity.
INTRODUCTION
Biblical complementarianism asserts that men and women are equal in value but different in roles. They “complement” one another. While there are many implications of this doctrine, the relevant one for this discussion is about the role of “elder” in the church. Elders are the spiritual leaders of the church. Their primary responsibilities are preaching, teaching, oversight, and the exercise of church discipline (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-5, 1 Timothy 3:1-16, 1 Timothy 5:17-19, Titus 1:5-9, Hebrews 13:17). I will be defending the position that men, and only men, are qualified for that role.
There are some complementarians who take the same position regarding deacons. For the sake of simplifying this discussion, I will not be taking up that particular mantle. Romans 16:1 suggests that Phoebe, a woman, was a deacon. There is certainly an interesting discussion to be had about that position, but I will concede this one to Catherine for the sake of focusing our disagreement.
With all those disclaimers out of the way, here is my thesis statement: the New Testament teaches that men can be elders in the church, and women can not. I will prove this clearly through the plain text of Scripture. But before I do, I will establish the Biblical rationale for the difference between men and women and their respective roles in the church.
THE CREATED ORDER & THE CURSE
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him a helper fit for him.”
-Genesis 2:18
From the very beginning, we see a clear delineation in male and female roles. To be clear, this is not a difference in value. Genesis 1:27 establishes that men and women are equally made in the image of God. Yet that equality speaks to their value, not to their functions. The mission of mankind- to multiply upon the earth and subdue it- is served differently and cooperatively by men and women. Women are given as “help-mates” for men. See? Equal in value, different in role.
The other key description early in Genesis is the curse God speaks against Eve in Genesis 3:16. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. This verse is hotly contested, because there is a Hebrew word that can be translated “toward” or “against.”
Thankfully, we have exactly the same construction in Genesis 4:7. And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it. What this text reveals is that both translations of the Hebrew word in question yield the same interpretation. Whether Eve’s desire is “for” or “against” her husband, it is a desire with the implication of control. Consequently, the curse is not the establishment of Adam’s authority. If it were, there would be room for an argument that redemption through Jesus Christ lifts that curse and nullifies that authority. Instead, the curse is Eve’s rebellion against the established order between husband and wife of authority and submission respectively.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CASE
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;
rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
-1 Timothy 2:11-14
There is a lot to unpack in these verses. The first and most important observation we must make is that Paul clearly and plainly forbids women from teaching or exercising authority over men in the Church. Note that Paul bases this principle in both the created order and the fall. This flies in the face of so much of the typical complementarian argument, which claims that the prevalence of male leadership in the Bible is culturally driven.
While complementarianism does not hang solely on this passage, I am convinced that it is the single most difficult section of the Bible for the egalitarian. Women are not to lead men in the church.
Women should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
-1 Corinthians 14:34
This is a challenging passage, and there is much nuanced discussion to be had regarding what exactly “silent in the churches” entails. But that discussion is unnecessary for this article. The core of this passage is quite clear. Women are not to publically challenge the men teaching in the churches. Paul bases this principle, again, not in ever-shifting culture, but in God’s unchanging law.
The third passage to which I appeal is actually a collection of passages. Titus 1:5-9, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, and 1 Peter 5:1-4 list the qualifications for elders. In all three, Paul and Peter assume that the elders who meet these qualifications will be men. Furthermore, we do not have a single Biblical example of a female elder in the New Testament (Catherine will protest this claim, I am sure. But I am not Catherine. So I agree with it wholeheartedly!).
WHY SO NARROW?
At this point, it would behoove me to explain why I am emphasizing the role of “elder” so forcefully. I have 3 reasons:
1. To narrow the field of discussion. For now, Catherine and I are focused on complementarianism vs. egalitarianism in the church and not the home. While these two realms are not totally separate from one another, they are distinct. I would say that the New Testament evidence for complementarianism between husband and wife is even more abundant than the evidence for this discussion, but to cite it would deter our particular goal. For now, suffice it to say that familial complementarianism undergirds ecclesiastical complementarianism, but it is not necessary to call upon the former when defending the latter.
2. Within the modern Western church, the real fight over women’s roles is about pastors and preaching. Nuanced discussions about the nature of prophecy and the exercise of spiritual authority have their place, but they are not necessary here. The Biblical text speaks plainly enough. Men, and only men, are to be elders. Pastors and preachers are elders. Checkmate.
3. To broaden the scope of this argument is to invite far more controversy. Remember, I am aiming to make the POSITIVE case for complementarianism. The time for rebutting egalitarian arguments will come later.
Are there more passages I could include? Yes, many! Yet I am consciously choosing not to, for the sake of clarity and focus in this particular discussion
IN SUM
Here is the complementarian case in a nutshell:
Women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men in the church
Elders exercise spiritual authority
Therefore, women are not qualified to be elders
MORE TO SAY, BUT NOT NOW
I am sure there are some egalitarians reading this and jumping up and down hooting and hollering about Junias, Priscilla, and the daughters of Phillip. In due time, my friends. For now, I leave these stones unturned, as I suspect that Catherine will cite some of these in our upcoming discussion.
Why the brevity? Allow me to explain. A plain reading of the text of the New Testament EXPLICITLY reserves the position of elder in the church for men. The egalitarian argument must be long-winded precisely because it must do so much explaining away of the cut and dry complementarian passages.
I look forward to the clashes to come over the contested passages in this debate. But I will restate one final claim unflinchingly: the burden of proof in this debate is upon the egalitarian. 1 Timothy 2:12 stares my opponents in the face, daring them to commence the hermeneutical gymnastics required to whisk it away. And with all sincerity, I wish them the best.
Break a leg.