A. K. Chidgzey

The basic gist of egalitarianism is that there are no gender specific roles. Neither women nor men are restricted in terms of the roles they can or are expected to perform within the church or within a marriage. This is not a denial of any difference between the biological sexes, but rather the insistence that roles are not based on gender.

The entire complementarianism argument rests on a particular interpretation of a handful of bible passages. So let’s return to those passages and see if they really mean what the complementarians say they mean.

Let’s start by looking at the creation accounts in Genesis. In complementarianism, the different gender roles are built right into creation. It’s entirely natural for a man to take a position of authority and a woman to take a position of submission. But is that really what we find in Genesis?

I actually don’t think so.

Genesis 1, verses 26-28 says, “Then God said, “Let us make humans in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea etc. in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea etc.”

So, first, I just have to note that I find it kinda funny and interesting that according to this account, the first commandment that God gives humanity is…to have sex.  

But more to the point, there is nothing in this passage that indicates that the different genders have different roles. On the contrary, they are both given the same commandment to care for creation. They are both given the same job.

When we turn to the second creation account, in Genesis 2, complementarians will often point to a few things to make their case. That the man was created first, that God instructed the man before the woman, that the woman is called a helper, and that the man was given the right to name all the animals and Eve. However, again, I have serious reservations of this interpretation. I don’t actually see any gender specific roles in this creation account. None.

Yes, verse 18 says, “Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”” But just sidestepping the fact that there was something in creation that was not good, Adam’s problem was not that he needed help governing the world or whatever he was doing, but that he was lonely. Humans need companionship and relationship. There’s nothing in here about specific roles.

So what about the word ‘helper’? Well the word by no means carries any connotations of subordination. It comes from the Hebrew words ‘ezer, which generally means ‘help’ and has connotations of strength. It is not secondary or submissive or inherently feminine. There were actually lots of Jewish men who had the word ‘ezer in their name, and the word is applied to God himself in Genesis 49.25 and Exodus 18.4, as well as other places. The word helper absolutely does not imply a subordinate role.

Maybe a good analogy could be when I’m playing a game and I get stuck and I’ll look up a walkthrough or tutorial on Youtube and watch how these magicians dominate the game and make it look so easy and give me ideas on how to get through the part I’m stuck on. They are helping me, but boy golly I definitely don’t have any authority over them.  

But what about the fact that the man was created first? Adam is superior because he was the eldest. Complementarians often point to what is called primogeniture here, in that Jewish custom the firstborn son has prominence and receives a greater share of the inheritance. This was a given within Jewish culture, as seen in the story of Jacob and Esau. But this really is not relevant to Genesis 2 for a few reasons. First, primogeniture really only matters when the father dies and the inheritance is passed on. The issue should be clear here: God doesn’t die. Second, Adam and Eve were definitely not siblings, so concerns about who would receive the greater share once God is dead doesn’t really make any sense here. Third, there was responsibility within primogeniture; once the father died, it was the responsibility of the eldest child to care for and look after the mother and the other children, and carry on their father’s name. So again that doesn’t really apply here. And fourth, the problem in saying that Adam had authority over Eve because he was created first is that in the first creation account in Genesis 1, humanity was created last. According to this reasoning, humans should submit to fish, because fish were created first in Genesis 1. But that’s not the case; Genesis 1 presents humanity as the crown of creation, its climax, and it was created last.

Sometimes people point to Adam naming Eve as proof that he had authority over her. But that doesn’t make sense here because the context here is God trying to find a suitable companion for Adam. God sees that Adam is lonely, and so brings animals, one by one, before Adam. God asks, “What about this one?” Adam says, “No, that’s a donkey.” God finds another. “Okay, what about this one?” “Ummm…we’re getting closer, but that’s a gorilla.” And then finally God creates a woman from the man’s rib brings her to Adam, and he says, “Yes, this is the one, this is a woman.” The point here is not about having authority over the animals or the woman, but about identifying them in relation to himself.

Also, the act of naming something is not actually ever about taking authority over someone. I’ve heard that argued before, but there’s not really any evidence for this idea. Naming someone was about identifying something about their essential purpose. Hagar’s son is to be called Ishmael, which means ‘God hears’, because God heard Hagar’s affliction. Abaraham names his son Isaac, which means ‘he laughs’, because Abraham laughed when God promised him a son. Jesus names Peter because Peter means rock, and Peter would be the rock upon which the church would be built.

And then we get to Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve disobey God’s command and eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and sin, shame, and death descend upon the world. God comes looking for Adam, and is like, “What’s going on?” Adam points to Eve and says, “She did it.” So she points to the snake, which was still hanging around for some reason, and says, “The snake did it.” And then God says to the snake, “I curse you. You shall slither on your belly.” But the snake says, “But I’m already…doing that…?” So God says, “Well the woman will jump on your head.” And the snake slithered away. To the woman, God says, “You can now have children.” “Oh that’s great!” She exclaims, but then God says, “But it’s going to hurt,” and then whispers some things into her ear and she cries out, “It’s coming out of WHERE?” God said, “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” And to the man he says, “The ground is now cursed and everything you do will be difficult and there will be weeds.” Adam groans and Eve asks, “Does he have to push anything out of him?” And God replies, “Yes. But he’ll enjoy it.” Adam smirks and looks Eve up and down. God realizes they’ll need some clothing, and after stitching something together threw them out of Eden.

Complementarians might point to the phrase, “Your desire shall be for your husband and he will rule over you” as proof of the man’s authority over the woman. But the issue here is that this is not a divine command. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s written in the passive tense, rather than the active. It’s what is called an etiology – it’s an explanation of why things are the way that they are. In other words, it’s a comment on the way of the Patriarchal, male-dominating world. But it is by no means presented as an ideal or as a command. It’s simply saying, “There is sin in the world, and because of that, this is what the world is going to look like.”

And then what God says to the woman is not actually a curse. God curses the serpent and the soil, but neither the man nor the woman. Prior to this moment, in this creation account, there had been no mention of pregnancy or of children. This is the first instance. You need to have children, because you are now going to grow old and die. Again, it’s an etiology. It’s not a punishment; it’s natural.

So, against the complementarian view that gender roles are built into creation, a closer look at Genesis actually reveals that these roles were a consequence of sin, and so Christians, who should labour against all sin, should also labour against this patriarchal male dominance.

But also the way the woman is treated in these creation accounts is actually really radical and very counter cultural. The woman is elevated in these passages in a way that would have been very strange in the world within which it was written. Not just the fact that women are even mentioned in these creation stories, but that a woman is given a name, is enormously significant for the time. Also, the woman is the image of God, just as much as the man is. Again, this is huge in its original context. These passages were radical for the time in how they elevated women to an equal standing with men.

Now I’ve spent way too long on Genesis, but I think it’s helpful to really explore whether the bible actually says that gender-based roles are a part of creation or not, and personally, I think not. But let’s turn to the New Testament.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul is instructing the Corinthian church on all matters of church unity and in ch.11 says, “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.” And this idea of head here is often interpreted as meaning authority or priority, as in, the man has authority over the wife as Christ is the authority over man. But this becomes a little bit problematic when we read that God is the head of Christ. Does this mean that God the Father has authority over the Son? This actually starts to sound like Arianism, which I did an episode on a month or two ago. This was declared heretical. A better way of thinking about this word ‘head’ is source or origin, rather than leader.

The word here is kephalé, which means head, but this word was rarely used when translating the Hebrew Bible to mean leader. So in the Hebrew Bible whenever the word rosh was used, which is Hebrew for head, when the Greeks interpreted that as leader, they usually used the Greek word archόn, not kephalé. This means that for Greek speakers, which Paul was, the word kephalé did not immediately mean leader. And in fact it is sometimes used to indicate the beginning or origin, such as Psalm 111, v.10, where it says that “The fear of the Lord the head of wisdom,” which we would understand as the beginning or source of wisdom. And in Colossians 1, Christ is the head because in him all things hold together.

But not only that, many early church leaders interpreted ‘head’ as beginning, such as Athanasius when debating against Arianism, quoting this very passage said that “the Son is the head, namely the beginning of all, and God is the head, namely the beginning of Christ.” And then outside of Christian literature, the Greek word kephalé is understood as the beginning, source, or origin: Zeus was the head, the first being, and in the Apocalypse of Moses, lust is the head of every sin.

So when Paul says that man is the head of the woman, he is not arguing that the man is the leader of woman. Rather, he is referring back to the creation accounts. This passage alludes to Genesis a few times, not least when man and woman are said to be the image of God. And in the creation accounts, God first created man, and then woman was created out of man. So in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is simply describing this order of creation, which we have seen does not imply an order of importance or authority. This is what is happening when he says that man is the image of God and woman is the reflection of man – Paul knew full well that Genesis 1 says that they are both the image of God – and when he says that woman was created for the sake of man, he’s simply referring to how Eve was created as a helper to man, which again we’ve seen did not mean submission.

But what’s happening in this passage? We read in verse 5 that women are praying and prophesying. They’re speaking in church! And Paul is not telling them to shut up. What’s happening is that he is advising women to wear head coverings because in Corinth, there was a temple dedicated to Aphrodite, the goddess of love and sexuality, where temple prostitution was practiced. Prostitutes would have their hair uncovered or cut short or even shaved. So when he is advising women to wear a head covering, he is doing something similar to when he discusses food dedicated at altars. There is nothing inherently sinful to eating the food or to have your hair uncovered, but doing so may cause others to stumble in their faith. He’s saying if you don’t wear a head covering, you might be mistaken as a temple prostitute.

A similar argument concerning clothing is found in 1 Peter 3.1-6 and 1 Timothy 2.8-15.

1 Peter ch.3 says, “Wives, in the same way, be subject to your husbands…Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing.”

In other words, avoid ostentatious displays of wealth, as the author goes on to say, ‘be humble’. The way of Christ is the way of humility, so leave your shiny stuff at home. It was common practice in Roman culture for aristocratic women to tie their hair up and decorate their fancy hairdos with jewelry. It was all about showing off wealth and position. Whereas the author of 1 Peter is urging humility.

Concerning the part that says, ‘wives, be subject to your husbands’ there’s two things to mention. The first is only a few verses later, husbands are told to act toward their wives ‘in the same way’. So this idea of submission is actually mutual. But the second thing is that is part of a list of several commandments to subjection. Starting from ch.2 v.13, the author urges his audience to submit to human authorities, including the emperor, slaves to subject themselves to their masters, wives to husbands, husbands to wives, and finally all of you to one another. The phrase ‘in the same way’ is key: “Wives, in the same that you submit to the emperor or that a slave submits to a master or your husband to you or everyone to one another, submit to your husband.” It’s telling how complementarians like to just focus on the one sort of submission.

And then again in 1 Timothy 2:

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument, also that the women should dress themselves in moderate clothing with reverence and self-control, not with their hair braided or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Boy golly there’s a lot in this passage. Again the clothing is about avoiding ostentatious displays of wealth, but when it says that Adam was not deceived and that it was in fact Eve who was deceived not only seems to contradict the Genesis account but also what Paul says in Romans 5, v.12, that was actually Adam who was at fault. And of course the idea that women will be saved through childbearing conflicts with the idea that we are saved through faith and not works, that there is no action humans can take to earn their salvation. So how could a woman be saved through having children? Plus, not all women can have children – surely this doesn’t mean that they cannot be saved!

But I suspect the issue here is something a bit more specific, and like the passage in 1 Corinthians is addressing a particular context, indeed a particular woman. And the reason why I think this might be so is because the text actually switches from the plural to singular. The author starts by saying that men should pray and that women should dress modestly for it is proper for women who profess reverence for God. But then it switches – let a woman learn in silence. I do not permit a woman to teach. I don’t think it’s a stretch, then, to assume the author is speaking about a specific individual, especially when just a little earlier in the letter, ch.1, v.19, the author laments that ‘certain persons have suffered shipwreck in the faith’, meaning that it is feasible the author has specific people in mind. And then following this section, the author discusses the qualifications for the role of bishop, which he speaks about in the singular, e.g. “Now a bishop must be above reproach”, because there was only one bishop. In fact, he could well have had a specific individual in mind here too. But then the author switches back to the plural when discussing the qualifications for the deacons, because there could be more than one. So the language is so similar between a woman and a bishop, that I think the author has a particular woman in mind. What’s more is when discussing the qualifications for deacons, who are leaders in the church, the author allows women to be deacons! Ch.3, v.11. There is no requirement here for deacons to be men and even mentions women. So how could the author be insisting, on the one hand, that all women should stay silent in church while, on the other hand, saying that women could in fact be leaders in the church? Riddle me that!

It seems to me that there was a particular woman in the congregation who was being disruptive, possibly preaching Gnosticism, and that she should stop disturbing the Christian worship. She should focus on what she does really well, what she does out in the world, which is taking care of her household and children. The fact that this woman was not named was a pastoral thing, because this letter would have been read out at the gathering, and if the author singled someone out in front of everyone else, that would not have been very nice.

And what about 1 Corinthians 14, where the author says that women should be silent and if they had a question about anything, they should ask their self-evidently intelligent husbands when they get home. In this instance, it is in the plural. But the issue here is that in chapter 11, Paul acknowledged that women do speak, prophesy and pray. How do we reconcile these? In one moment, he’s saying it’s ok and then in the next he’s saying it is not okay. I think it’s more likely that Paul is speaking, again, to a specific instance. What, precisely that instance was has been a matter of debate, and possibilities are many, but it simply cannot be a blanket commandment for women never to speak, because Paul allows and encourages it elsewhere. Also, in other instances, he commands other people, which presumably includes men, to be silent, even within this same very chapter. So again, it’s not especially clear cut.

1 Corinthians was written precisely because Paul received information from Chloe, a woman, who Paul mentions by name in his letter. She would have been a leader in the church in Corinth. It doesn’t make sense that Paul would support her leadership and then tell her to stop being a leader.

The point here is that we can only take these instructions ever so literally, in the way a complementarianism might, if we ignore all those other moments when Paul supports or encourages women in positions of leadership, authority, and speaking.

But before we move on, I want to highlight the responsibility placed upon men in these instances. In many of these passages, men are called to love their wives, even submit to their wives, be willing to die for their wives. In the first century world of the Roman Empire, I cannot understate just how radical this was. Ephesians 5 commands husbands to love their wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. In a world where women were pretty much property, had no self-autonomy, and severely limited rights, the command for a man to consider his wife his own flesh was ridiculously counter cultural. But Ephesians 5, v.21 even tells everyone to submit to one another, regardless of class or status or gender or age. The Roman world was built on social structure and order and hierarchy. The assumption that the emperor was at the top, the aristocracy just below, men above women, adults above children, and everyone above the slaves, would have been just as much a given as the assumption that the sun would rise the next morning. Telling people to submit to one another, telling men to treat their wives as equals, would almost have been seditious. From a modern perspective, these verses seem misogynistic, but the reality is that they were actually quite progressive and elevated women in a way that had not been done before.

And speaking of seditious, let’s look at a few passages and instances in the bible that often get overlooked by complementarians or explained away using quite convoluted strategies. And the first is Galatians 3.26-28:

In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ and clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

This comes at the end of a discussion of how the Gentiles are now included into God’s family. What Paul is doing here is breaking down societal walls concerning people’s position before God. He’s turning it all upside down. If you are in Christ, there is no longer any distinction between a Jew or Gentile, you are both called by God. Is he saying that someone who is born in Israel is no longer a Jew, or someone born in Athens is no longer a Greek? No. But concerning their spiritual status before God, those distinctions don’t matter. And so it’s the same with slaves – in Christ, you are spiritually free – and with women. The social and spiritual distinction between men and women before God has been eradicated, which means that from God’s perspective, there is no difference and so there is no need to adhere to Gender-specific roles.

Again, this is another radical statement for the first century. It’s basically throwing up the whole patriarchal structure of the Roman Empire. Paul knows full well that the differences between the biological sexes still exist – if not, how would the human population continue? And he’s definitely not telling the slave to run away from or disobey their master. But he’s talking about social status and role before God, in Christ, and in eradicating this social distinction between them and us, slave and master, man and woman, making them equals, he’s actually elevating the woman in a way that had not happened before.

These distinctions might still exist in the world; slavery still exists, ethnicities still exist, gender distinctions exist. But not in Christ. Which means, therefore, that gender-based roles are not a divine command. The complementarian argument that gender-based roles are instituted by God just holds no water in light of this. Before God, there is no man or woman, we’re just all humans, all children of God.

But there’s also a whole bunch of examples in the New Testament of women in positions of authority. When Paul writes to the Romans he names several women. He states in ch.16: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon, so that you may welcome her in the Lord, as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you.” This woman is a deacon and Paul is telling others to submit to her authority. Paul entrusted Phoebe with this epistle, she was the one who carried the letter to Rome. So it’s likely she’s the one who actually read out the letter. A woman was the first person to preach from Romans!

As if that doesn’t make the case super obvious, he then names Aquila and Mary, women he felt great affection for and were significant ministers and evangelists, and then, here’s the kicker, says that a woman named Junia was a prominent apostle. An apostle, basically the most prestigious of the early Christian leaders. And a woman at that! Later manuscripts actually changed the name to the male Junias, but the earliest manuscripts and earliest tradition states that this person was in fact Junia, a woman.

A woman named Nympha is said to be hosting a church in her house in Colossians 4.15, which doesn’t just mean she’s renting out her living room, it means she was a leader in this particular community. Same with the recipient of the letter 2 John, “the elect lady and her children.” She is the one receiving the letter which means she too was probably hosting a church gathering and would likely have been the one to read this letter out to everyone else. But she is authorized to act as the gatekeeper for this church, to allow or deny entry to people, and to decide what theology is taught. That is significant authority!

In fact, the more you read the New Testament, the more women you notice. And more who seem to be exhibiting a rather unusual level of self-autonomy and authority. Such as the women who followed Jesus. Jesus surrounded himself with women.

Luke 8 says that many women travelled with Jesus and the disciples, dedicated followers of Jesus. Like the men, they left everything behind. Jesus noticed women others would not notice or would ignore, such as Peter’s mother-in-law, the woman who touched Jesus’ cloak, the daughter of Jairus, the widow of Nain, and the crippled woman who Jesus healed on the Sabbath. He used women in his parables as examples of faith and taught the need to care for women and treat as people with value, not property.

It’s even very possible to consider many of these women Jesus’ disciples. In Matthew 12 Jesus himself points to a group of men and women and says, “Here are my brothers and sisters” and they are called his disciples. He’s not just pointing to the men and calling them his disciples; he’s including women.

Mary of Bethany, in Luke ch.10 sits at the feet of Jesus to listen to him teach. This was very much the position of a disciple, as Paul described himself in Acts ch.22 as a disciple sitting at the feet of Gamaliel. Mary assumed the position of a disciple and Jesus commended her for it. Elsewhere, Martha tells Mary that their rabbi, Jesus, had arrived. They were his disciples, he was their rabbi.

In Acts 9.35, we read that “In Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha…She was devoted to good works and acts of charity.” This woman was a disciple known for doing good deeds.

And then at Jesus’ crucifixion, both Matthew and Mark state that there were many woman there. Jesus had a large following of women.

Among these was Mary Magdalene who accompanied Jesus and supported him financially. She was a leader within the early movement and was hailed in later tradition as the apostle to the apostles because of how she told them of the resurrection. Early tradition elevated her highly and even has an apocryphal gospel attributed to her. It was only later that people started to think of her as a prostitute, a notion which has no evidence and has been rejected by contemporary scholarship as an attempt by other men to discredit her.

There was also his own mother, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, Salome, and John also adds Jesus’ mother and aunty, and Mary the wife of Clopas. All with the same name – seriously, why does that always happen in this podcast?

Many women, and indeed many named women. These were important people. Readers of these gospels would recognize these names because these women were highly respected within the early community.

And then at the resurrection, again, there’s heaps of women.  Luke mentions several women, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, as well as stating that there were many other women. And it was to women that the message of Jesus’ resurrection was entrusted.

Angels say to these women, “He is not here; he has risen! Remember how Jesus told you” and then it says that they “remembered Jesus’ words”. And yet elsewhere, in various occasions, we are told that only Jesus’ disciples were told what would happen to him. Put two and two together: Women were among his disciples.

Who were the first people to preach about Jesus’ resurrection? Women!

If that is the case, then, why are only 12 men explicitly listed as disciples? Well, firstly, there were more than 12. Luke 10 says that Jesus appointed 70, which he sent off in pairs. The two men, one of whom was Cleopas, who encountered the risen Jesus on their walk to Emmaus, were described as disciples. There’s plenty of others, and there were both men and women who were counted among Jesus disciples, including this woman Tabitha from Joppa, but the reason why the number 12 was highlighted was because it connected to the 12 tribes of Israel. The theological point here, of course, was that in Jesus, God was renewing his people and nation.

Secondly, the reason why 12 men are highlighted as Jesus’ favored disciples is simply because of the conventions of the time. The text alludes to female disciples, but those writing the texts later on were steeped within the Patriarchal world of the Roman Empire. Not only that, but the people who would read these texts and stories would have been steeped in this world and so the idea of a woman having authority would have been insane. The fact that the New Testament alludes to female disciples was subversive and provocative enough.

But it’s also not just the New Testament which challenges the standard patriarchal structures. All throughout the Old Testament, we find women in positions of authority and leadership, or generally taking matters into their own hands or directly receiving a word from God.

In Genesis 25 Rebekah asked a question of the Lord, and he replied, giving her a word of prophesy. In Exodus 2, Moses’ mother took the initiative to hide the infant Moses to protect him. He grew up to lead the Israelites out of slavery. In Joshua 2 there was a woman named Rahab in Jericho who recognized her visitors as people sent by God. In Judges chs.4-5, we read about Deborah, who was a judge, a leader over the people of Israel. A woman. And she was a leader! A military leader no less. In Judges 13 we read about a woman who received a word and a prophecy from God, that she would conceive. She was faithful and obedient to God and she did indeed conceive and that child was Samson, who would lead the Israelites in victory against the Philistines. A woman named Ruth has a whole book named after her, a woman who was the picture of faithfulness to God. And then there was Esther, another woman with a whole book named after her, who literally shrugged off the ordinary patriarchal conventions of the time and, by doing so, saved the Israelites living in Persia. In 1 Samuel chs. 1 and 2, Hannah is presented as a pious, praying woman who was rewarded by God. There is a lengthy prayer written down, attributed to her, of her praising God. The fact that this prayer, by a woman, was included in the scriptures and functioned as a model for how others should pray, is quite significant.  

Huldah, Miriam, Deborah, Anna, and Philip’s daughters are prophetesses.

The point is, and I didn’t want to skip over this, that if the bible is telling women to be submissive, the actual women in the bible are really, really bad examples. And yet the bible includes them as good examples. To argue for complementarianism you need to take a couple of verses out of the New Testament, interpret them in a way that ignores all standard rules of interpreting literature, and then just ignore all the rest of the bible.

Now, having said all that, I don’t actually think the Bible is either complementarian or egalitarian. That would be anachronistic. Complementarianism and egalitarianism are dealing with modern concepts that would have been foreign to someone living in the first century Roman Empire. By and large, women were treated more like property, which makes the bible’s attitude, the early church’s attitude, Jesus and even Paul’s attitude toward women, all the more extraordinary. It was thoroughly subversive.

I don’t think an especially good case can be made for complementarianism and though I don’t think the bible itself can be considered egalitarian, I think it leans much more towards a form of egalitarianism. I am convinced, and doubt I’ll ever be convinced otherwise (though, of course, I never rule anything out), that a proper 21^st century theology that takes scripture seriously can be nothing but egalitarian. If it’s not, it’s allowing traditional cultural assumptions to distort theological reflections.

Complementarianism is a remnant of a feudalistic theology that itself was modeled on patriarchal Roman imperialism. The early church recognized the subversive nature of Jesus’ teaching and women leaders abounded, but it was especially with Constantine’s conversion and his weaponization of Christianity and the imperialization of the church that women’s roles were denigrated.

So, why do I think this important? Why have I spent so long on this episode?

I think this topic is important for a few reasons.

First, you have probably gathered that I think the bible, and Jesus, leans toward an egalitarianism. So I would be unfaithful to my convictions if I didn’t harp on about this issue.

Second, women comprise a whopping 50% of the world’s population. By restricting positions of leadership, authority, spiritual direction, and so on, only to men, we are literally cutting our potential in half. So by righting this balance, we are improving the chances of humanity improving itself. It’s like trying to select players for a basketball team and 50 people show up to tryouts and then we decide that only people with brown eyes can play. 25 people walk out the door, including 6ft 9, 3 time NBA MVP, blue eyed Larry Bird. Larry Bird can look after our bottles of water and put the score up on the scoreboard. We’re halving our potential.

Third, if both men and women are the image of God, as it says in Genesis, then it’s vital that women be represented in the workforce and in decision making positions. If church is the most visible representation of God and the community of God, then women must – they must – be in visible positions, positions where they can speak and be heard, where they can actually make decisions on behalf of the women in the church. Otherwise, the God that is represented is a purely male God. Which is entirely not who God is.

Fourth, women are people too. So just for the sake of human dignity, let’s stop suppressing them.