Full disclosure, I’m an egalitarian. I believe that men and women, though biologically unique from one another, are not required by the Bible to be relegated to specific roles within the church or in the home. The church for which I work comes from the Church of God, Anderson movement and is also egalitarian in its approach to ministry. Women may be lead pastors in a congregation. I have, though, some wonderful and faithful friends who are complimentarians. A complimentarian holds that the Bible teaches that men and women are relegated to different God ordained roles within the church and, for some, within the home. The spectrum within this camp ranges from those who believe that women should be silent in church, submissive to their husbands, and relegated to western traditional roles within the home to those who believe that women and men are to be mutually submissive with men as the head (as Christ is the head of the Church), women may participate actively in ministry under the authority of a male pastor, and there is a great deal of mutual respect for both genders and their gifting. Thankfully most of my friends approach complimentarianism from this second, very respectful, camp.
In a blog that I frequent from time to time a discussion on gender roles caught my attention. In the comments I asked the question:
If male headship is a result of the fall (Genesis 3:16) then why wouldn’t the liberation of Christ require us to move away from those categories?
The reply from the article’s author, Tamie, offered some great categories to explore but the comments ended there. I would like to explore these categories here. She said:
I think the two big questions in the debate are:
1. Is male headship a result of the fall or does the fall distort good male headship?
2. If it is, does the NT move away from it and towards liberation of Christ or does it seek to restore male headship, but in the image of Christ?
My goal here is not to debate the Pauline passages on women. That is for another post. I would like, instead, to focus on Genesis in relation to Christ’s work on the cross. Let’s first take a look at the passage in question (emphasis mine):
Genesis 3:16-20 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.“ 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.” 20 Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.
My first temptation after reading this passage is to classify male headship as a result of the fall. This, in my mind, puts it in the same category as sin. Is this a fair assessment of male headship? Of course, one could also say that this puts male headship in the same category as clothes but I’m not so quick to say that as a result of the freedom Christ brings we should all become nudists. Clothes aren’t explicitly defined as something that are brought into the equation as a punishment for sin so I think we can safely assume that wearing clothes does not fit into the same category as male headship or sin.
Now there are three caveats to this issue that need to be explored: 1, Is male headship a God ordained and timeless instruction for all believers for all time? Or 2, is male headship primarily a cultural institution and therefore not binding in every culture? Or 3, does male headship come from both a combination of culture and providential ordination? After these three questions are explored we can address the two questions asked by Tamie, which get to the heart of the issue.
Let’s start with question 1. Is male headship God ordained and timeless? What can we learn from the Genesis passage? Well, I feel comfortable saying that male headship is a consequence of the decisions made by Eve but I could be misreading the text. In God’s comments to the serpent he states a cause – “Because you have done this.” In God’s comments to the man he also states a cause – “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife.” However, to the woman he does not say “because.” I tend to assume from the text that there is a cause which is stated earlier – “because” the woman was deceived and ate. Is this a fair assumption? Or am I implying too much? Maybe the fact that there is no “because” means that it is a simple reality of life from here on out. Maybe a break in communion with God cannot happen without an increase in the pain of childbearing and the institution of male headship. Which one seems most faithful to the text? Is there a third way to understand the lack of explicit causation?
By asking if male headship is timeless I mean, is headship something that exists in the original order of creation to be applied for all of time? We’ll explore that later.
Question 2: Is male headship primarily a cultural institution? As an egalitarian my short answer is yes, of course, but I recognize that this doesn’t further the conversation. What does male headship look like? For some it means a world of very specific gender roles and responsibilities. I was once turned away when I offered to help clean up after dinner at a Southern Baptists pastor’s home deep in the Appalachian Mountains. A few seconds later a female associate of mine offered the same help and was welcomed into the kitchen. It was culturally insensitive of me to even offer the help but it was culturally expected that she would participate in clean up and all because when these people read the words of Paul and the Genesis 3 passage they projected their traditional gender roles onto the text.
When we examine gender through fields like psychology, anthropology, human development, and even missiology (my field of study) we find reason to examine all of our previous assumptions about gender roles. Although I have explored the idea that gender is cultural nothing I have written proves that it is primarily cultural. I’m not certain I would defend gender as solely cultural but I think it is an important element. Here is how the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Gender:
“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”
Psychologists now categorically define sex (biology) and gender (cultural/psychological) differently. Of course it is not possible to completely distinguish between the body and the mind because they are two parts of the same whole, but we can distinguish between human beings and culture. In Australian culture, for instance, it is less acceptable for a male to be openly sensitive (unless of course it has to do with sport) than it is in America. This is not a biological phenomenon but a cultural one that is deeply rooted in what it means to be a male in Australia (Though there are exceptions and I found many Christian males to be more open to their sensitivities than their not-yet-Christian friends). Not being a psychologist I can only examine this anecdotally rather than in-depth but I imagine that we all agree there is a great deal of what we consider “gender” that has been shaped by our culture, if not all of what we consider gender. Our biology deeply affects our gender as well though. Men and women have different amounts of different hormones that affect how we think, behave, and experience.
Question 3: does male headship come from both a combination of culture and providential ordination?
Here is where complimentarians and I part ways. I believe that when we read Paul’s advice on women we are seeing culturally defined gender roles rather than timeless truths to which Christians should always submit. I think back to my experience in Appalachian culture. The director of our ministry site was a female. She was not in charge of teaching or even involved in direct hands-on ministry but took care of the organizational side of the ministry (housing, finances, etc.). We learned very quickly that when interacting with locals, and in particular Christians, with whom we hoped to partner we sent a male to do the talking. Some people would not even consider talking to a female or working with a ministry that put a female in her position. If I were to write a letter to the staff who would be taking our place the following summer it would not be beyond me to borrow a sentence from Paul: “But do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” This is not because our director was incapable but because this was the most profitable approach to ministry in this community. Again, this is anecdotal but demonstrates my point. Even if Paul was a child of his culture and bought into the ideas of his culture that does not make them necessarily applicable to our own. After all, even he admitted that there is no male or female when it comes to Jesus.
I promised this would be about Genesis 3 though and not about Paul so let’s continue down that path by asking Tamie’s questions:
- Is male headship a result of the fall or does the fall distort good male headship?
This is really two questions: Is male headship a result of the fall? Or, does the fall distort good male headship?
The first question is what I asked originally. When we read Genesis 3 does it teach us that male headship is a result of the fall? The second question implies that male headship was in place (timeless) and that the fall reoriented, and therefore distorted, it. So if male headship was not initiated at the fall from where does it come? In her blog Women in Ministry, Cheryl Schatz covers common answers to this question. Here are a few reasons she has discovered why people believe that male headship was in place before the fall:
- God’s design in Genesis 1
- Adam names Eve which implies authority (he calls her both woman and Eve)
- Eve usurped Adam’s authority (but this is only true if it is previously established that he has authority over her)
I’ll only address the first one as the other two seem to be dependent on a previously established authority. God’s Design in Genesis 1:
Genesis 1:26-31 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
This is the key passage for this claim. You can see though that there is no authority given that places the man above the woman here. They are given mutual responsibilities. One might claim that the Genesis 2 passage more clearly defines a hierarchy between the genders but it isn’t in the text.
Genesis 2:18 – 3:1 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Here we see that man had a relational need and the female was created to join him. There is nothing that implies submission or hierarchy here. In fact Adam’s own words imply mutuality. He says she is of the same essence as he is, and that when they join together they will be one flesh. You could, of course, retroactively interpret these texts by first reading Paul and then interpreting Genesis through his words but I think that would be putting the cart before the horse. Paul isn’t reinterpreting Genesis he is writing letters to churches and church leaders. If anything we should first work to understand what the relationship between genders was before the fall and then work to understand Paul.
- Does the NT move away from male headship and towards liberation of Christ or does it seek to restore male headship, but in the image of Christ?
I can’t express how well this question is worded because it is truly the heart of the issue. As an egalitarian I hold that male headship is a result of the fall and that the work of Christ liberates us from these categories. But Tamie’s question gives cause to stop and reflect. Does the work of Christ restore male headship as it was intended to be?
As I see no evidence that male headship existed before the fall, I cannot adequately address this question. I welcome my complimentarian friend’s insight here. Please feel free to address the claims I have made in regards to there being, in my understanding, no pre-ordained/timeless hierarchy in gender relations. For that matter please feel free to clarify, correct, or explore any of the ideas I’ve presented here. My plan was not to write so much but as I’ve read through this I can’t think of anything to take out and wish that I could add more (sorry!)! If I have misrepresented complimentarians please feel free to correct me. I think this conversation is helpful for all of us even if it only serves to reinforce the stance of people from both parties!
Good article!
Great post! Well balanced, insightful, and full of love even for those with whom you disagree.
An egalitarian too,
Larhanya
Hey Joey
Flowing out of where you left off, I thought I’d raise a slightly different angle.
This is to ask, ‘What do we do with headship?’ In other words, given that headship already exists in various forms in various cultures, how is a Christian to respond?
This is particularly relevant in light of the passages that explicitly refer to headship in some form or other. I know you didn’t want to look at Paul here, but bear with me!
At first blush, Ephesians 5 seems at least to suggest that in cultures where there is some kind of pre-existing headship, a Christian’s response is not to jettison headship but to offer a Christian account of headship. This of course says nothing about whether or not headship is a universal value, but it does suggest that we cannot flatly say, ‘Headship is wrong’. Paul seems to have another way in mind.
It seems to me that — redemptive movement hermeneutics included — egalitarians must somehow keep talking about headship…
Arthur, great missiology! And great push-back! That’s a tough one. I completely agree with you that “egalitarians must somehow keep talking about headship” in some sense.
I don’t want to equate this issue to slavery but there is a helpful parallel in Paul’s writing. Paul, and his faithful contemporaries in general, weren’t abolitionists. This is a hard truth to face. But what Paul (and Jesus) did is turned the terms of slavery on their head. He not only encouraged slaves to be better slaves – he encouraged slave owners to view/treat their slaves as brothers! That was unheard of to the class of folks wealthy enough to own slaves. It’s like in the movie Ghandi when Ghandi’s wife couldn’t lower herself to the position of an “untouchable” and clean toilets. Paul said don’t get rid of slavery, but make slavery look like the Kingdom of God!
In some cases, I completely agree that the concept of headship needs to be worked with and even adopted. This is what we had to do in Appalachia to an extent. As an egalitarian Christian (not sure I was an egalitarian at that point though) I had to keep my mouth shut on quite a few occasions and operate within their culture rather than my own. My hope here isn’t to extinguish male headship, particularly in cultures where that is integral for a way of life. My hope is for us (western Evangelical Christians) all to ask whether or not our notion of headship is cultural or biblical and then deal with it accordingly. I fully encourage complimentarians who enjoy that form of mutual submission and respect to practice it with joy and love. But what of those women who have been truly gifted to lead? My hope is also for them, that they will given the freedom to do so if it is their passion.
I don’t know if it’s quite correct to say that Paul “wasn’t an abolitionist.” “Abolition” refers to a political movement to lawfully remove slavery as an institution, from a society. To say Paul was not an abolitionist, would imply that there was a political movement called “abolition” back then and that Paul chose not to subscribe to it. Neither premise is true. There was no such movement as “abolition” in the first-century Roman world– and Paul made it quite plain in his writings that his focus was on the spread of the gospel, and that alone. He would have considered any political movement to be a distraction from his mission.
However, as you say, Joey– Paul made it clear that Christian masters and Christian servants were to act like brothers and sisters, not like slaves and masters. Slavery as a social institution was something they lived with but transcended. Therefore, if a social structure were to be set up based on the law of Christ (which is love) rather than on the laws of Rome, it would make sense that such a society would not include slavery as an institution.
Similarly, with husbands and wives. Paul made it clear that husbands and wives had to live within, but transcend, the social structure of patriarchal rule. He sets “submit to one another” as the overarching principle characterizing Christian relationships, then tells wives to submit to their husbands just as slaves were told to submit to their masters– and then turns the husband-rule system on its head by insisting that husbands emulate, not the rulership of Christ, but the sacrifice of Christ in which He submitted even to the point of death, to those who wanted to kill Him.
Therefore, if a social structure were to be set up based on the law of Christ (which is love) rather than the laws of Rome, it would make sense that such a society would not include patriarchal husband-rule as a social institution.
I think that most Western societies today imbibe freely from the idea of society being governed by the law of love– “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “All are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain rights” is an Enlightenment principle, but it is thoroughly entrenched in Christian morality. Western societies have thus seen first the eradication of slavery, then the insistence on racial equality, and finally an emphasis on female equality, as a working out of this basic principle.
If Paul were here today, he would still insist on a focus on the gospel of Christ taking precedence over social-political movements. But that doesn’t mean he would disapprove of a social structure in which “there is neither slave nor free, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is not male and female” is realized as a political reality. In fact, I think he would approve.
Caveat– this is not to say Paul would approve of Western societies in all their sins and excesses. But in the realm of social equality– yes, I think we can make a very good case that he would have approved (though he would still have said the most important thing was that the gospel be spread).
Kristen, thanks for the comments.
“To say Paul was not an abolitionist, would imply that there was a political movement called “abolition” back then and that Paul chose not to subscribe to it.”
This isn’t necessarily true. For me to say that Paul was not an abolitionist is to admit that “abolition” is a category I would love to project onto Paul but can’t because it isn’t part of his context. I’m simply saying that this is a way that we are not able to process Paul and his relationship with slavery rather than implying that he could be an abolitionist he just chooses not to. So in the end, yes I agree with what you are saying. Though II Corinthians may give us room to explore socio-political activity, like abolition, as an integral part of the Gospel – i.e. the ministry of reconciliation.
So how did the American abolitionists use the Bible as a justification against slavery? It seems there are a lot of passages in the Bible that support slavery. There are more passages that appear to support slavery than male headship – many many many more passages.
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ…Eph 6:5
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening…Eph 6:9
Paul is not supporting nor endorsing the continuation of the practice of slavery. On the contrary, he is appealing to their sense of fair treatment one to another to ensure a peaceable relationship in an existing situation and time that permitted privileges to one to the exclusion of the other.
We know he continued in this effort to eradicate the existing system and implement one that is patterned after mutual respect when he encouraged Philemon to change his attitude toward his slave to one of a brother in Christ. He further tells slaves that if they became a believer while being a slave, to remain in that position (because of the late hour) but if they could become free, to rather do that (1 Cor.7).
In a very real sense, he was an abolitionist but being a realist as well, knows such a practice cannot be changed overnight. He begins following his conversion to “level the playing field” so to speak.
He endeavors to do the same between husbands and wives with his radical admonishment that they submit one to another.
good article …
all my life I have been hearing the complementarian arguments … and they never did make any sense to me …
Adam named Eve … actually he didn’t till after the fall … and the domination of the woman by the man is quite clearly given as part of the curse.
I know we are all guilty of reading our own culture into the Bible, but it concerns me when some verses are allowed as culturally conditioned, and then a verse in the same passage, and on the same subject is put forward as the law of God which is to be held as unchanging.
Apart from anything else … it does not keep Jesus’ own command not to “lord it over” one another, nor does it keep Paul’s injunction to husbands to love their wives as Christ loved … that is sacrificially and for her good.
Of course, women have to make sure their also obey the command to respect their husbands.
But God’s revelation is progressive, a concept very well explained in Webb’s “Slaves, women and homosexuals”
My question is – since the Bible talks so much more about slavery than male headship – why do complimentarians more about male headship?
“My question is – since the Bible talks so much more about slavery than male headship – why do complimentarians more about male heaship?”
Because it’s clear that slavery is not scriptural and that Paul sought to elevate slaves to the status of a “brother” in Christ. How, after all, would it look if they were to continue to advocate slavery?
The last bastion of male authority/elevation open to them rests on their interpretation of those male/female scriptures the same way evangelical slaveholders did to justify slavery for hundreds of years.
To be fair to our complimentarian friends, male-headship is an issue that is a part of every day living – it is closer to home than slavery. As an egalitarian I focused my energy on this post to the topic of male headship so it isn’t just complimentarians who focus on it. Slavery exists today and should be on all of our radars but that doesn’t mean we can’t explore other ideas and concepts.
I’ve been pondering a bit about these questions on slavery. Around Christmas I read a book by Michael Card called “A Better Freedom” which deals in great detail with the issue of slavery. Card does a great job of showing that abolition is a shallow endeavor compared to the restructuring of relationships when Christ is involved. Paul never wrote to end slavery but he wrote in great detail about how for Christians slavery is different. He always seemed to take culture for what it was while focusing intently on how Christians can be both in the culture but not of the culture. Be a slave, but not the way that the world would have you be. Be a slave owner but treat your slave as a member of your family.
For me as an American I am in FULL support of abolitionist efforts in our history. The human rights violations of slaves in America (and all over the world/throughout history) is atrocious. The strongest case for me to end slavery, besides humanism, is II Corinthians, Jesus first sermon in Luke 4, and The Sermon on the Mount. If the gospel isn’t about reconciling people to God and, as a result, people to each other then it isn’t the Gospel that Jesus came to bring. Jesus advocated for the poor and the oppressed and as a Christian in America I have to look at my history and celebrate when Christians finally did the same.
At the same time I think we are all called to look at slavery and take notes. Jesus is master and we are his servants. The Christological Hymn of Philippians 2 is the story of a slave. The Magnificat of Mary is a slave spiritual – steeped in language like “bond servant” (doulos) and “master” (kyrios). Jesus takes the image of the slave and turns it into this beautiful image of the Kingdom. We are called to be servants to the master because the freedom He gives is better.
“At the same time I think we are all called to look at slavery and take notes. Jesus is master and we are his servants.”
Good thoughts, Joey! But we need to differentiate between slaves who are “forced” to be slaves and “bondservants” who willingly choose to serve.
In the OT God even put boundaries on slavery in commanding them to be free after 6 years of service.
And Jesus Himself changes the relationship of His servants when He said He would call them His friends.
John 15:15 “No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Jesus also said He did not come to “be” served, but to serve. We serve Him willingly because He served in giving His life.
Paul definitely thought freedom for slaves was to be desired in 1 Cor. 7. And he reminded them that they were bought with a price (by Jesus) and not to become slaves of men.
Forced slavery is very different than willing service.
Hey Joey
Yeah, I always say that the ultimate anti-patriarchal statement is Jesus’ kenosis in Phil 2:5-8.
Seeing as you’ve just posted on Genesis, I’d be keen to hear from you on my posts on it!
On interpreting the Bible or any text, context is supreme.
On slavery, writing something like “slave DISOBEY your masters” would have been a death sentence for the author, the letter carrier, and the congregation keeping such a letter. Paul was wise and would not do something that explicit, instead he turned the institution inside out.
On spouses, there is no term “headship” in the Bible, what IS there is kephale/head which most often refers to the thing on one’s neck, but can also be used as a metaphor, the question is what does the metaphor mean?
Again, context is supreme, just because in the 21st century calling a husband a head of his wife may sound like head means boss or leader does not make it so in the 1st century, that would be teleporting ancient text and NOT recommended. And Paul TELLS us what a head does when the head is Christ, he serves the body, giving it life, etc. So a husband is to serve his wife. There simply is no concept of leading in the examples given in the NT except if one assumes there are there by reading the text with masculinist lenses.
P.S. I am egal.