Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate

by Michelle Lee-Barnewall

What would happen if leading proponents of the classic positions could actually come together in a spirit of love, unity, humility, and selflessness, with everyone vowing to study the texts and the issues afresh with commitments to no prior agendas and with no polemic that those who came out in a different place from them are in any sense academically or spiritually deficient? I have no doubt that there would be differing conclusions, but I also strongly suspect that the extremes in each camp would be eliminated. I could hope that people would conclude that there was room in the church of Jesus Christ for multiple perspectives, that at times we would have to agree to disagree in love, but that we could mutually support and encourage one another even when our churches and parachurch organizations differed in their perspectives.

When the dominant goal is to defend one’s position, it is extremely difficult to consider the possibility that answers may not lie exclusively on one side, to see the beneficial arguments on the other side, and to explore new areas.

her book The Argument Culture, linguist Deborah Tannen

Tannen explains, “Opposition does not lead to the whole truth when we ask only ‘What’s wrong with this?’ and never ‘What can we use from this in building a new theory, a new understanding?’”

As Tannen further observes, “When the problem is posed in a way that polarizes, the solution is often obscured before the search is under way” (21). Our methodology should make room for a different kind of answer, but a “culture of critique”9 does not allow for another position. Although criticism certainly has its place, so do other methods such as integrating ideas from different fields (19).

George discusses three questions for those involved:11 “What do I owe to the person who differs from me?” While we are not obligated to agree with that person, we do owe him or her love. As a result, we are to be good listeners, seeking to understand the person’s aims and asking whether there is anything valid in his or her position. “What can I learn from those who differ from me?” In recognition of his or her own fallibility, each interpreter should be prepared to learn that he or she is wrong and the other person is right. Seeking after truth is more important than winning discussions or protecting reputations. “How can I cope with those who differ from me?” We must remember that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. Consequently, our goal is not to demolish our opponent but rather “to win him or her over to a new and, we trust, better understanding.”

He calls for both sides to recognize their mutual commitment to historic Christian orthodoxy and to allow this greater context to be the basis for a unity under which differences can be discussed.13 With this underlying unity, perhaps there can then be “honest confrontation of ideas and truth claims as well as a conciliatory spirit that is open to convergence and reconciliation.”

We may gain more not from merely asking what rights a person has or who has power but by seeing why unity matters and how it is accomplished by power manifested through weakness (2 Cor. 12:9), such as was exhibited through the cross. This does not mean that questions of rights and authority do not matter. Instead it implies that our perspective on them may shift when we see them within a larger context.

Once people are included in the body of Christ, the priority is a willingness to sacrifice for one another rather than individual benefits for members of the group.

God’s unified church, the holy temple of his Spirit, thus provides a critical and underutilized component for the discussion. A natural desire is to concentrate attention on personal good and individual roles, leading to well-intended questions that highlight rights or proper positions of authority. But this method can have the unintended consequence of reinforcing our conception that the individual is the central concern. However, if we begin from the perspective of God’s purpose for the church as a whole, we see that these concerns are transcended and put into larger perspective as the members are called to love one another following the example of Christ, who purposely relinquished his rightful privileges for our sake.

the kinds of questions we bring to the text determine the kinds of answers we receive,

To ask that question means that they have not fully understood the ramifications and nature of God’s grace. We can learn from Paul’s answer in contrast to what could have happened if he had simply replied yes or no as we consider gender. As evangelical Christians, we often want to know what we can or cannot do, or what we should or should not do. As the gender debate has concentrated on specific activities, it runs the same risk of creating a theology defined by an external pattern of prohibitions and allowances. Various biblical and theological arguments are brought to bear to support a theology that concentrates on form and praxis, and in particular, as related to individuals. As a result, the discussion is dominated by practical questions such as “Can women be elders?” “Can women teach men?” and “Do men make the final decision in marriage?” I understand the need to address the practical questions, but I also ask whether there is room to suspend them for a moment to reexamine Scripture without these predetermined goals. To use a modern analogy, we can easily see the problems of a theology of spiritual formation grounded on a question such as “Can Christians drink/smoke/gamble and so on?” These questions are formed by our desire to know precisely how to live, but if we present them as our starting point, we take a shortcut that causes us to miss the larger picture and perhaps do more harm in the long run. Not many people would say that Christian spirituality is defined si...

I propose the need to step back for a moment from the pressing questions of the day to ask whether they represent the best way to approach the issue. I also present some other possibilities. While our current questions have a definite practical value, are there other questions we should be asking, ones that are more foundational to the topic? In other words, can we gain a more robust understanding of the role of gender in the kingdom of God, which may then help us answer our specific questions?

This period is an intriguing moment in evangelical gender relations. The influence of the Industrial Revolution and Victorian ideology created a mix of ideas that assigned women to the domestic realm while simultaneously propelling them into the public arena. While complementarians and egalitarians may argue over, for example, whether women’s place is primarily in the home or whether they should have equal opportunity for public leadership roles, this era saw a blurring of the private versus public distinction precisely because women’s domesticity meant that they had a duty to bring their domestic values to influence the corrupt larger society. Women did not argue for their “right” to public ministry as much as they felt compelled and were urged to act because of their superior moral and spiritual nature.

The view of woman’s sphere has been called the “cult of true womanhood,” in which there was a “sharp dichotomy between the home and the economic world outside that paralleled a sharp contrast between female and male natures, the designation of the home as the female’s only proper sphere, the moral superiority of women, and the idealization of her function as mother.”11 In the cult of true womanhood, women became associated with virtues such as “purity, piety, and domesticity.”12 In comparison the highest Puritan virtues for women included industry, modesty, and good stewardship.13 This moral elevation of women contrasted sharply with other aspects of Puritan thought. For the Puritans, both men and women were considered sinful, but women were often particularly so since they were associated with Eve, who had tempted Adam and was responsible for the fall.14 However, women were now seen as the guardians of the nation’s virtue. They were the moral superiors of men, who had been corrupted through their involvement in the world and needed their guidance.

As the citizenry drew together in their opposition to England, they also realized the necessity of social cohesion. But rather than tyranny, they would form a collective government by combining the individual liberty of each person. This “pooling of each man’s liberty into a common body” is what would enable them to avoid both slavery and anarchy.17 Since such an undertaking would require one to surrender some of one’s own liberty, the cultivation of virtue took on a political role.18 The safety of the government and the people’s morals were intimately connected, so that public virtue would promote a flourishing government, while vice could lead to tyranny.

Charles H. Pridgeon, founder of the Pittsburgh Bible Institute, stated, “The question of the ministry of women is more than just an academic question. The force of men who offer for His service is inadequate. Souls of men are perishing. There is no time to argue whether it be a man or woman that performs the service. The need must be met.”57 In speaking about female evangelists, Fredrik Franson noted that the need to save souls took precedence. “Brothers, the harvest is great and the laborers are few. If the ladies want to help out in the fields during the harvest time, then I think we should let them bind as many sheaves as they can. It is better that women bind the sheaves, than that the sheaves get lost.”

woman could consider the world, and not just her immediate home, as her household and object of concern. The need for women to work in behalf of this larger “home” helped to propel them into the public arena of reform and also to shape perceptions of what was acceptable for women. As in other eras, women were largely defined by the home, so it was an essential component of their identity. However, enlarging this understanding of “home” provided a compelling justification, indeed an obligation, for women’s involvement in larger social issues.

In comparison with earlier times, the types of concerns that provided the fundamental basis for the second wave of evangelical feminism were more individualistic than those at the turn of the century or even in the 1950s. In this way the second movement reflected the ascendance of individualism in American culture48 as well as the rise of a consumerist and therapeutic culture and its emphasis on the perceived needs of the individual.49 While evangelicals were not unaware of the inherent dangers of a theology focused on the self,50 they continued to emphasize applying the Bible to meet these perceived needs.

Even when women such as the Grimké sisters spoke of rights in the mid-nineteenth century, there was an intimate connection between rights and responsibility, for they were arguing for their right to speak on behalf of others.

cultural values have had a profound impact on the way evangelicals talk about gender. The impact of culture in setting the interpretive framework is important because the questions and concerns with which one approaches the Bible play a large role in deciding what types of answers one finds.

Ultimately, however, the current debate still comes down to whether there are any restrictions for women in ministry, and in terms of marriage, whether women are to “submit” to their husbands in a unique way or whether there is only “mutual submission” in marriage. Thus the themes of “authority” and “equality” remain the critical points. In other words, do women have equal opportunity in the church and equal decision-making power in the home, or are some positions restricted to men, who also have a particular authority in the home? Within this essential structure, research has focused on answering these basic questions in support of the respective sides. However, these questions, while important, may reveal cultural rather than biblical priorities.

people of God. Yet it is based not only on a special relationship with God but also on the way in which that relationship impacts the Israelites’ relations with other people and nations and among themselves. Leviticus 19, for example, outlines their expected conduct toward their families, their neighbors, and strangers.31 “The call for Israel to be holy is the call for the community to concretise the divine life in the world,” so holiness includes the way it is manifested in and through the life of the people in their relationships.

Thomas observes that “a holy God among a holy people in a holy place” is “the enduring eschatological hope of the Scriptures.”34 The people’s holiness reflects God’s holiness, so they are a witness to the world. This testimony of the church in the New Testament means that unity was a critical aspect for preserving the sanctity of the dwelling place of God’s Spirit, and the relationships within the community were a supremely important way to manifest the divine life. Consequently, as we examine gender in the life of the church, we will consider it from the perspective of holiness and unity in the church’s obedient response to God’s saving grace. This results in the corporate witness of the church, and not simply in terms of rights or privileges given to individuals or groups of individuals.

Thus the concept of reversal speaks to issues of identity found not in oneself, one’s position, or personal power, but in dependence on God. It refers to a profound willingness to sacrifice what gives people status and meaning in their current context for a value that comes from God alone. As such it causes the credit to be given to God rather than to flawed and sinful humanity. When applied to the community, it results in the deep unity of his people as they consider others before themselves and challenges leaders to be primary examples of this submission to God.

Paul also affirms a kingdom community characterized not so much by equality as by a “oneness” in which all could be included, regardless of factors such as gender, race, or socioeconomic status, and, even more, could love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ despite these traditional barriers. While such inclusion might have social ramifications such as equality, it was the love of the believers for one another that was to be a hallmark of the body of Christ. Rather than structural change, “the issue for Jesus was one of attitude and perception of the relation between self and others.”6 This means not that equality could not be a feature of the New Testament community but rather that it is not the primary guiding point. The key to Paul’s ethic is the “mutual upbuilding” of the members of the body, so individual rights are ultimately subservient to love, because one may need to sacrifice a right in order to help another.

Although Gal. 3:28 is often used as evidence of an egalitarian theology,15 the passage does not speak of equality as much as unity, of being “one.” Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, are not isos, “equal,” but heis, “one.”

Richard Longenecker states in reference to Gal. 3:28, “The passage clearly suggests that on the basis of this new and objective reality a whole new set of attitudes and reactions are to be ours as Christians as we seek to express this reality in the Church and in society.”23 The new attitudes and reactions implied by the passage seem to point not to equality, at least in terms of sameness or fairness, as much as to a profound love for and acceptance of one another that binds the community together as one.

Thus what characterizes the community is the way in which the people of God love one another in their differences, not an overlooking or erasure of distinctions. Consequently, while other social implications such as equality could arise, these may be secondary to the larger concern for the loving unity of God’s people in their differences. Love, not equality, leads to the true unity that Paul describes in which the members “may have the same care for one another” (1 Cor. 12:25). Equality speaks to one’s personal privileges and rights, whereas love describes one’s willingness to prioritize others.

In all these examples, people are called to give up their privileges for the sake of the gospel and the unity of the church. The willingness to sacrifice for the good of another is the essence of love in the New Testament. Paul uses Christ’s lowering and sacrifice as an example of the love the Philippians should strive to have among themselves (Phil. 2:2, 5–11). Giving up one’s legitimate rights to prevent another believer from stumbling is a way in which love “builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1–13).

the people of God were called to be a witness to the world. The eschatological body of Christ combined Jew and Greek, slave and free, barbarian and Scythian, and male and female into a unity in which all were called to love and serve the other. As fellow members of the body through the grace of God, they were to love one another irrespective of their current positions, whether a socially imposed position such as slave or free, one determined by a distinction based on creation such as male or female, or one related to an ethnic division with long-standing hostilities such as Jew or Greek.34 While these distinctions were transcended in Christ, they were not irrelevant. Rather it was precisely because these distinctions existed that the believers’ unity and love would be so remarkable.

While the gospel is offered to all, it comes to the Jew first and then to the Greek (Rom. 1:16). In Rom. 2:9–10 we learn that Jews have priority over Greeks when it comes to honor or tribulation given for those who respectively do good or evil. Most of all, Rom. 9–11 teaches that the gentiles remain “secondary grafts” onto Israel.39 Although all people can be “in Christ,” there remains this distinction between Jew and Greek as the church is founded on the promises given to Israel. Paul later talks about the eschatological role of the Jews in bringing about the final blessings (e.g., Rom. 11:12–16). Thus, while Jew and gentile are “equal” in the sense of being “one” in Christ, and there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:13–18), at the same time the Jew has a special role in regard to the gospel.

Richard Bauckham explains: It may be not so much their supposed unreliability as witnesses or their susceptibility to delusion in religious matters, but something even dearer to patriarchal religious assumptions: the priority of men in God’s dealings with the world. In these stories, women are given priority by God as recipients of revelation and thereby the role of mediators of that revelation to men. Is this not part of the eschatological reversal of status, in which God makes the last first and the first last, so that no one might boast before God?68 In this way God challenges the world’s assumptions to show his sovereignty.

the universality of the pouring out of the Spirit on all, eclipsing issues of age, gender, and social status (Acts 2:17–18, 39). Although it has been argued that the reception of the prophetic call by both women and men indicates that the “highest levels of ministry” are now open to women,69 it is doubtful that this is the explicit purpose of the passage. Prophets certainly exhibited leadership as those who spoke for God as recipients and proclaimers of revelation. But it was still left to the church authorities, such as the elders, to confirm the message and then take action, as seen in Acts 15:28 and 21:10–14.70

While prophets could claim a definite type of authority, their contribution still had to be validated by those who were given responsibility for the overall well-being of the congregation.

Thus Acts 2 speaks of Jesus’s promised giving of the Spirit to his followers. Women are “equally” included in the outpouring of the gift of prophecy and the reception of the empowering Spirit. However, whether this carries further implications for equality is not the point of the passage. Instead, “inclusion” better captures the implications of Pentecost since it reflects the focus on participation of all in the blessings and mission of the kingdom rather than a distribution of rights or privileges.

Complementarians hold that men and women are spiritually equal and are equally created in God’s image, but with some functional differences.83 In contrast, egalitarians believe that their equal standing before God results in equal opportunity for church ministry and shared authority in marriage.84 However, we have tried to argue that, rather than attempting to determine what kind of equality is present, a more fruitful approach may be trying to see how the church is characterized by a larger concern that may then impact how we view equality.

Inclusion does not preclude rights, but as an orienting perspective it draws attention to participation in the kingdom and the redefinition of relationships within the community. It demonstrates kingdom values in the way the church manifests its holiness in love and unity. Whereas “equality” and “rights” focus on the individual benefit of the members, “inclusion” speaks of God’s act of taking groups separated by natural hostility and suspicion toward one another and uniting them as one body and one holy temple whose members love one another as empowered by the Spirit. In this context it is not the obtaining of rights but rather the giving up of rights that provides a critical component for promoting cohesion and intimacy among the members.

In this context, “servant” would seem to do more than qualify “leadership.” Instead it provides an essential component so that one must be a servant before one can be a leader. In other words Christ indicates that servanthood is a prerequisite for being a leader. Thus, rather than considering how servanthood modifies a type of leadership, it may be better to ask how servanthood forms a necessary basis for leadership, even authority,

signify humility as much as service done for someone else.19 In 1 Cor. 4:1–2, Paul calls them hypēretai of Christ and oikonomoi of the mysteries of God. The former term refers to those who take orders from someone else and whose significance is in connection with his or her master.20 In the context of the household, an oikonomos was a slave who was responsible for overseeing the household, including other slaves.21 As such, oikonomoi had to follow the master’s instructions and were continually aware of their dependence and need to give an accounting.22 In various ways Paul sends the message that the attention should be given not to the apostles but to the one who appointed them and the task for which they have been commissioned.

this reversal of traditional expectations leads to unity. Rather than stability obtained by each part living according to its worldly status, unity is achieved by the self-sacrificial behavior of the entire body, and especially the high-status members.

reexamine our understanding of leadership and the centrality of authority in the complementarian position. The New Testament certainly affirms the validity of both. At the same time it identifies as a vital component setting an example of being like Christ that believers can follow in their relationships with one another, which then leads to the unity of the church, God’s holy temple. This is not the only aspect of authority and leadership for the Christian community, but a fundamental one, and one that should profoundly impact our overall view of the nature, goals, and purposes.

if servant leadership is “sacrificial,” it would be good to ask what is being sacrificed. Being a servant or slave in the ancient context meant a deep loss of status and honor, which were essential components of a person’s identity and key measures of a person’s worth. For a person to become a servant or slave meant giving up these critical markers of identity. In today’s terminology, we might say that this person became a “nobody.” It also meant the loss of the right to self-determination and self-assertion. But for Paul, this is precisely what freed him to consider others before himself.

We would do well to ask whether our conceptions of leadership and authority recognize the equivalent of this paradoxical kind of social lowering and abasement and, consequently, the vital component leading to a Christ-focused and other-oriented perspective in the church that produces unity. Furthermore, we must ask whether our structures give the glory to God, who gives the growth, or the people occupying the positions.

the evangelical community’s very quest for truth may unintentionally hinder its exegesis of narrative passages pertaining to the gender issue. Because the Bible is the source of ultimate truth, interpreters tend to concentrate their analyses on answering vital theological questions. However, these questions are not necessarily the principal ones the text was intended to address.

A literary approach can help overcome this tendency to ask and answer predefined questions. It begins not by asking “Does God give Adam a special authority?” or “Are Adam and Eve equals?” but rather by asking questions such as “What does the author intend to convey about Adam and Eve?” and “What does the passage tell us about God and his relationship with and purposes for Adam and Eve?” Although the latter questions may lead to an answer that addresses authority and/or equality, they are not limited to or automatically centered on these concerns.

This is the first time God speaks directly in the passage. Robert Tannehill notes the importance of dialogue in narrative: The use of dialogue in a dramatic scene involves the expansion of the amount of space in a writing given to a segment of time in the story, compared to the alternative possibility of presenting an event or series of events in a brief summary. Thus dialogue in a dramatic scene emphasizes, while summary narration of events gives them a subordinate position.32 Only the command not to eat of the tree, and not the command to cultivate the garden, is presented as a spoken command. The centrality of this particular command in the progression of the story is furthermore demonstrated in that throughout the rest of the story, the narrative continually presents it as direct speech either by God himself or as repeated by the other characters.

striking and important pattern here: God gives the command directly to Adam, asks only Adam whether he broke the command, and specifically relates Adam’s punishment to the command. It is not that Eve is exempt from obeying and suffering the consequences of her sin since she is punished as well. Rather, we can note that from a literary perspective, the narrative is crafted in such a way as to draw special attention to Adam’s special relationship to and responsibility for keeping the command.

Even though some have proposed that Adam’s failure was that he did not take the “lead” in resisting Satan’s temptation and instead stood by passively while Eve fell into sin,41 the text itself points to the primary aspect of his failure as his disobedience instead.42 The importance of Adam’s disobedience should not be underestimated, especially since Paul affirms this understanding in Rom. 5. Paul does not describe Adam as someone who abandoned his headship but rather as someone whose disobedience led to death. “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into

She is created for a specific purpose as Adam’s “helper.” Understanding the significance of her role as “helper” lies not as much in a determination of relative authority or equality as in a careful examination of the way that the narrative portrays the type of help she is to give and what actually happens.